"recovering Catholics"?

[Gertabelle]

Wow. I can’t believe that after stumbling on this thread I read or scanned all 196 posts up to when I started this. I may have the beginning of Excedrin headache #…uh, I lose count, lol !

First, I was very grateful for the few islands of sanity (SpritMeadow and Gertabele gee thanks. I thought my words were a little less than charitable. Thanks for creating them as an island of sanity in particular) that allowed me to more easily hop over the turbulent waters of emotionality that surged almost everywhere.

It’s amazing how some threads can take on a life of their own, no question.

Your story is both amazing and familiar – one I have heard many times, and experienced myself in its own form. Although my practice of Catholicism is extremely orthodox, my 15 years outside the Church has left me with a “no judgement” policy. I know the integrity and longing that individuals bring to their search for God, for meaning, for the Eternal that seems to call to each human heart. I cannot and, please God, will not judge others as being less holy than I because their expression of faith (or lack thereof) is different from mine.

But in keeping integrity in the practice of my faith, I do pray for all people, those of my faith, and those outside of it.

I loved your comments about being awake and having no thoughts. I couldn’t agree more! I’ve done a great deal of training with Landmark Education, and what you’re talking about here seems similar to what they call the “IT” of our lower brain. “It” keeps us breathing and keeps our hearts pumping and can generally get us out of bed, get our teeth brushed, and get us through the routines that sustain our existence – dressing, bathing, eating, working, driving, etc.

My work in Landmark Education (LEC) gave me an extraordinary foundation for living my faith life fully alive and awake in mind and spirit, not just body. If you’ve never heard of them, you might want to check out their website and see if they have anything to offer you. There’s nothing “spiritual” about their work, and they’re not affiliated with any faith tradition or religion. My Mormon friend deepened her faith through this work, and I returned to the Catholic Church and chose to be orthodox in my practice through LEC. Bring your life and what’s important to you, and see what happens.

The twisted, contorted, excruciatingly painful faith engendered none-sense some of those poor people are suffering is criminal. And that is from someone who is a celibate bachelor who gets “offers” regularly. But the scenario on the morals thread and some others is reflective of the unnecessary convolutions that the faith requires in nearly all areas.

Just a heads-up: This is only your own opinion of their words. Their (and my) experiences may, in fact, not be at all “twisted, contorted, or exruciatingly painful.” Nor do those of us who faithfully follow the teachings of the Catholic Church necessarily have to undergo “convolutions” of any kind to do so. For some of us, faith is simplicity itself. But then, I try really hard not to get into arguments with those whose beliefs are different from mine. “Never try to teach a pig to sing” – this pig already knows how to sing and is loving her song

God bless you, dear one. Keep up the search for Truth (or truth, or God, or divinity, or the Eternal). He Who I know to be God will certainly bless and sustain your efforts. Peace.

Gertie

 

[Detales]

Gertabelle, thanks for your note.

I know of a number of people who have done the Landmark course. From the results I have seen in them, I would recommend it highly to anyone. I am glad you were a beneficiary of it, as most folks who have done that work are generally very even keeled. Why aren’t such things–there are several of them–a part of the regular school system!!!

I don’t know from participation in the course wht that IT is, but from what you say, that IT is still dependent on the seeming void that supports it. I don’t know, but that is what it sounds like to me. I really don’t have the words to describe the total discontinuity that experience percipitated in my experience. My sense from this perspective is that it was yet a more fundamental state thatn IT. I say this having studied about the “fish brain” and “reptilian brain” that we use for such actions as you describe, the lower or primitive part. What I’m talking about is before that. In any case, I wish that I had the resources to take that training. I am very much impressed with the results.

As for the “convoluted” stuff, yes, that is a personal comparison. It is made between how I had to think to justify or even come up with some of the faith based questions I used to have and how I see now. Looking at the questions that some of those folks had about things that were so utterly simple, but made into issues of paramount significance, actually had my eyes popped and my stomach in a knot. Some of those questions would not occur to me as even remote possibilities of actual consideration, and I felt pain on thinking that someone had to go through that to feel worthy, or unstained. I was nearly in tears. But like you say, that is me. I could no more think like that now than take a single jump and land on the moon. It was a shock to me to see how much I had actually changed, and how simple the Love of God can be when not third partied, so it seems. I couldn’t do it, that is all.

Blessings on you, and I hope someday to be a fellow Landmarker!

Here’s oinking at you!

Bindar

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Ronald Rollheiser’s book “The Shattered Lantern” is also a great read on the subject of contemplative prayer - from a Catholic/John of the Cross/Theresa of Avila point of view. In the end, the doctrines and dogmas of the church are the guideposts and traffic signals on the road to heaven. The sacraments are the gas stations and roadside diners. They are there for the safety of all the drivers, or for fuel and food to complete the journey. But they are not an end to themselves. God is the end of the journey.

Peace,
-Robert

Thank you Robert, I’ll look into it. This is one area that perhaps we can set aside all the who is best junk and realize that in prayer, we are one, be it RC, Protestant, or even non-Christian. There is no need to turn it into a contest, since it is clear that all the mystics of old and today teach exactly the same practice.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thanks, SpritMeadow,

I also, after over forty five years of inquiry and practice, now have a library of books by such as Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, Merrell-Wolf, Toni Roberson, Nisargadatta, Byron Katie, and my own beloved Mentor, KG Mills. I have stayed away from christainst mystics for the reason that most of them yet attribute their experiences to what appears to me to be an anthropomorphic god. But I have an increasing interest in St Theresa, and others, including Aquinas who stopped writing when he realized during a mass that “It is all as straw.” I suspect that he woke up at that moment. I feel for him; I can’t imagine what he was faced with as a result of that. But I will look into the list you recommended with interst.

As for meditation, I have practiced some form of that for about fifty years. I was even a checker in Maharishi’s organization. That form made a great and sudden change in my behavior, as it gave me the peace of mind to allow a few stewing matters to settle into resolution. I also had fun with it at a lecture on cardiac health. I volunteered to be the test subject in an EKG demo, and the tech got mad at me because by the time she hooked me up I had reduced my heart rate to way below normal.

My own Mentor recommended two ways that differ from that, one of them the way of counting breaths in sets of ten up to fifty, then seventy, with no external aids to keep track. Lose track, start again, lol!

Anyway, it is delightful to meet you on here again, and I look forward to more of your level headed and open hearted posts.

I imagine that upseting the cardiac demo was amusing. I used to think that eastern meditation was somewhat different than western contemplation. However, from the book I mentioned, I tend to think now that it is just different wording for the same experience. I see much of western ritual, such as the rosary, and other repetitive prayer essentially a mantra.

I have counted breath for about 2 years, and I guess was dismayed at my lack of progress, though I know that is the not point. The book helped me to understand more clearly what I am doing, and what to expect. I do “notice” breath as much as I can, and use a phrase “help me, Jesus” to return to center when I find myself wandering. Then when I feel back in place, I watch the breath, until I fall off again.

I have read all over the board, from traditional eastern meditation to more comtemplative methods. But you can begin to pick up the threads I find of the same silence and quiet place wherein Oneness is achieved,no matter how brief. I have experienced it a few times, for a minute or two, and I suppose I felt more like I was just floating in space yet without any fear. I don’t think I quite achieved a sense of oneness.

But once you get a sense of what can be achieved, it seems impossible not to continue pursuing it. We learned a bit more from our bishop who led us on a day of silence to kick off Lent this year. I’ve been pretty gungho again since then…lol.

Blessings, to you.

 

[Detales]

I definitly agree with you, Spirit. It only makes sense that all the “children of God” would have the same modalities of perception and experience. That would include the inner journey of self discovery. It might also explain the very wide occurance of versions of “Know Thyself.” When the thoughts are quieted, it seems there is another kind of intuitive knowledge that comes to the fore, a knowledge that is ineffable and deep. It seems to me also that it would be natural, given the very large and largely unknown premises of grammar, that the ideas we speak of would be expressed in somewhat different terms. For my part, I have always been more interested in the underlying ideas than the particular language they are framed in. That language is always necessarily symbolic to a degree and kind, and demands experiential investigation to determin its actual referent. The attempt, as you clearly know, is worth the effort.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Thank you Robert, I’ll look into it. This is one area that perhaps we can set aside all the who is best junk and realize that in prayer, we are one, be it RC, Protestant, or even non-Christian. There is no need to turn it into a contest, since it is clear that all the mystics of old and today teach exactly the same practice.

What a comforting thought. My response to your thought can be summed up nicely in the language of Lumen Gentium…

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

What is honest prayer if not, at its heart, the sincere seeking of God in response to His grace?

Peace,
-Robert

 

[guanophore]

Romans 3:12

All have gone astray;** all alike are worthless;** there is not one who does good, (there is not) even one.

You have some thinking to do. Your asking me this question? Your very own Bible, the New Testament clearly states that all persons are worthless. Your acting like I made this up!

You are taking it out of context, phantasm. If you look at the passage, and the one from Psalms of which it is a quote, it is clearly referring to those who reject God. Both passages also talk about the righteous.

 

[phantasm]

You are taking it out of context, phantasm. If you look at the passage, and the one from Psalms of which it is a quote, it is clearly referring to those who reject God. Both passages also talk about the righteous.

The inspired word of God wouldn’t be so ambiguous.

It is clear, that the passage is talking about every single human being. If it was only talking about certain people, being the inspired word of God, the passage would be absolutely crystal clear as to distinguish between a specific minority of people and everyone.

Do you really think that the creator of the universe would not inspire his human authors to write explicitly clear passages, so that there would be no debate?

Of course God would, God is perfect, therefor his book must be perfect.

Have faith.

 

[josie_L]

The inspired word of God wouldn’t be so ambiguous.

It is clear, that the passage is talking about every single human being. If it was only talking about certain people, being the inspired word of God, the passage would be absolutely crystal clear as to distinguish between a specific minority of people and everyone.

Do you really think that the creator of the universe would not inspire his human authors to write explicitly clear passages, so that there would be no debate?

Of course God would, God is perfect, therefor his book must be perfect.

Have faith.

How well do you know God, that you should think to understand his ways. You assume much about the God you reject.

 

[phantasm]

How well do you know God, that you should think to understand his ways. You assume much about the God you reject.

Nope, Jesus was perfect, Mary was perfect, God is perfect, therefor his book would have to completely perfect, perfectly clear, with no ambiguity, no confusion and no room for debate, so as to preserve its complete perfectness.

The inspired word of God is understood easily by all, as God is the actual author, he just used men to slap the ink onto paper, have faith.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Nope, Jesus was perfect, Mary was perfect, God is perfect, therefor his book would have to completely perfect, perfectly clear, with no ambiguity, no confusion and no room for debate, so as to preserve its complete perfectness.

The inspired word of God is understood easily by all, as God is the actual author, he just used men to slap the ink onto paper, have faith.

Phantasm,

Your conclusion doesn’t make any sense to me. Even though God is perfect, we are not. Our interpretations are muddled.

 

[guanophore]

That you choose to believe that your church is the holder of all truth is your choice.

Such a statement does not accurately characterize Catholic belief. The Church holds God’s Revelation of Himself to her in it’s fullest form. She does nto claim to hold “all truth” such as those found in the sciences and arts, for example. Even more so. She acknowledges that the Truth that is God is ineffible to the human mind, and we are unable to grasp it’s fullness.

It no where makes it true or right according to the rest of the world.

This is very true, but then again, Truth is not defined by what the “rest of the world” believes, thank God. On the contrary, God is Truth, and He has not relinquished the standard of Truth so as to define it “according to the rest of the world”.

I postulate that this method of defining Truth is indeed consistent with the Original Sin, in which the created beings refused to accept what God wished to reveal to them, and chose to act according to their own standard.

   In fact most Catholics don't subscribe to your belief,

Most people that call themselves Catholic in the United States are really not. They are “cafeteria catholics”, which really means they are Protestants, but don’t know it. They are in rebellion against the authority and teachings of the church, and some have excommunicated themselves, and don’t realize this either.

It admits that other Christian faith traditions also contain truth. While it no doubt wishes to believe that it has the most, and you subscribe to that, there is nothing scriptural that states that.

Actually, it is Scripture that attests to the fact that the Catholic faith has the fullness. The reason other faith communities are recognized as having truth is because to a greater or lesser extent, they have retained elements of the Catholic faith. The more Catholicism they reject, the less truth they retain.

Happily, most of Christendom doesn’t require a denigration of other faiths as part of its doctrine as you seem to think is required of you.

Speaking the Truth in love is not “denigration”. What is denigrating is to confirm others in error.

 

[Detales]

G’phore,

Re 212 & discussions on here about how to argue, etc, aimed at some common ground in these exchanges so that they might be more fruitful:

It seems to me some on here may not have an idea of how different our perceptions are. It’s a fascinating study itself, if anyone ever considers how we obtain, retain, and use data, & especially religious data. But that last seems often a taboo topic, so let’s try something here. I feel that you are a mature and intelligent person and someone who will “get” my intent, so I’ll amend your post to read as someone who is non-Catholic might read it. Please remember, I am totally convinced that God IS, and the there was a Jesus who was the Son of God. I know I’m capable of making errors myself, so this is just an excercise in perception.

“That you choose to believe that your church is the holder of all truth is your choice.”

Such a statement does not accurately characterize Catholic belief as distinct from knowledge. The Church holds ,we beleive, God’s Revelation of Himself to her in it’s fullest form, according to our interpretation of scriptures we selected in the early centuries, which scriptures are in various ways questionable. She does nto claim to hold “all truth” such as those found in the sciences and arts, for example. Even more so. She acknowledges that the Truth that is God is ineffible to the human mind, and we are unable to grasp it’s fullness. As do we non-Catholic theists. (reader notes that “choice” is inadequately addressed)

“It no where makes it true or right according to the rest of the world.”

This is very true, but then again, Truth is not defined by what the “rest of the world” believes, nor *any *particular church or philosophy, thank God. On the contrary, God is Truth, and He has not relinquished the standard of Truth so as to define it “according to the rest of the world” or any select group’s interpretation.

I postulate that this method(?) of defining Truth is indeed consistent with the Original Sin, in which the created beings refused to accept what God wished to reveal to them, and chose to act according to their own standard. again, that being my particular belief in the face of other valid scriptural interpretations, rejected by reason of my faith or ignorance of them, & which may not even remotely resemble my “take.”

“In fact most Catholics don’t subscribe to your belief,”

Most people that call themselves Catholic in the United States are IMHO really not. And elsewhere? They are “cafeteria catholics”, which really means they are Protestants, but don’t know it. as, similarly, many of us don’t know what we are called by others They are IMHO in rebellion against the authority and teachings of the church, and some have excommunicated themselves, and don’t realize this either. I having examined their cases as would the appropriate office of the Church, pre-empting their decision. It is clear the there are few acutal “real” Catholics in my opinion, and boy, do we have a job to do, and we (christianists) will make Jesus proud, because He failed to convince all those folks on His own.

“It admits that other Christian faith traditions also contain truth. While it no doubt wishes to believe that it has the most, and you subscribe to that, there is nothing scriptural that states that.”

Actually, it is my belief in someone else’s allegation of meanings of Scripture that attests to the alleged fact that the Catholic faith has the fullness. The reason other faith communities are recognized as having truth IMHO is because to a greater or lesser extent, they have retained what I think are elements of the Catholic faith. The more Catholicism they reject, the less of what I personally believe to be truth according to what I have learned to accept, they retain.

“Happily, most of Christendom doesn’t require a denigration of other faiths as part of its doctrine as you seem to think is required of you.”

Speaking my interpretation of the Truth through my particular limited lenses I have put on myself in love is not “denigration”. What is denigrating is to confirm others in what according to my understanding so far, as that might change, is, error.

It seems to me that SM mostly followed the rules of General Semantics and self referenced her observations as stemming from her own belief that she chose in conscious awareness and according to her best lights. Otoh, G, you make some personal belief statements as if they are Universal Truth apart from your advocating that they are so. You may, and clearly do, have personal realsons for belieiving what you do. That is perfectly fine and necessary in a way, but that is what they are: personal reasons. They are accepted in the face of what to someone observing from, say the perspective of an extra-terrestial anthropologist who has no stake in the matter, are most likely incomplete and local data, heavily influenced by emotional association tied to the instinct to survive. Nothing wrong with that, it is something we all have to do.

But as St. Paul says, we have to grow up. A mature individual might examin all pertinent data from a very impartial standpoint. That especially in as important a matter as salvation, if one thinks there is such a thing. Most people will never do that, IMHO, being practically comfortable in their way, and therefore lacking desparate motivation.

 

[annem]

Otoh, G, you make some personal belief statements as if they are Universal Truth apart from your advocating that they are so. You may, and clearly do, have personal realsons for belieiving what you do. That is perfectly fine and necessary in a way, but that is what they are: personal reasons. They are accepted in the face of what to someone observing from, say the perspective of an extra-terrestial anthropologist who has no stake in the matter, are most likely incomplete and local data, heavily influenced by emotional association tied to the instinct to survive. Nothing wrong with that, it is something we all have to do.

Detales, come come. Catholic belief rests very firmly on 2,000 years of very clearly defined and very clearly reasoned truths. Do you deny this, and if so, why?

Catholic beliefs are not “most likely incomplete”. After 2,000 years of constant heretics attacking the church, we have the most brilliantly reasoned doctrines in the world. If you do not agree, explain.

And your argument that other people are “heavily influenced by emotional association” as if you were a psychologist talking to a patient, is childish, sarcastic, and downright mean. Yes, you fell away from Catholicism. Apparently you are now trying to convince others to do so.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[josie_L]

Nope, Jesus was perfect, Mary was perfect, God is perfect,

Ok, so far so good.

therefor his book would have to completely perfect,

Yes, it is perfectly inspired, without error as God intended.

perfectly clear,

Only for the Catholic Church for she has retained the full deposit of faith (oral and written) given to her by Jesus to the Apostles and so properly understood and interpreted by their successors.

with no ambiguity, no confusion and no room for debate, so as to preserve its complete perfectness.

It would have been had the CC remained intact and/or had there been no heretics distorting the Truth. Scripture did and does warn us that there will be those who will twist the word of God for their own wicked purposes:

“His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard, so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from you secure position.” 2 Peter 3: 16-18

or

“Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from Heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” Galatians 1: 7-9

inspired word of God is understood easily by all, as God is the actual author, he just used men to slap the ink onto paper, have faith.

No it is not easily understood,

"Then Phillip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. Do you understand what you are reading? Philip asked. “How can I” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?’ So he invited Phillip to come up and sit with him. . . Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.”

As such Scripture is to be interpreted by someone with the authority to do so, i.e., the magisterium through apostolic succession.

 

[josie_L]

It seems to me that SM mostly followed the rules of General Semantics and self referenced her observations as stemming from her own belief that she chose in conscious awareness and according to her best lights. Otoh, G, you make some personal belief statements as if they are Universal Truth apart from your advocating that they are so. You may, and clearly do, have personal realsons for belieiving what you do. That is perfectly fine and necessary in a way, but that is what they are: personal reasons. They are accepted in the face of what to someone observing from, say the perspective of an extra-terrestial anthropologist who has no stake in the matter, are most likely incomplete and local data, heavily influenced by emotional association tied to the instinct to survive. Nothing wrong with that, it is something we all have to do.

But as St. Paul says, we have to grow up. A mature individual might examin all pertinent data from a very impartial standpoint. That especially in as important a matter as salvation, if one thinks there is such a thing. Most people will never do that, IMHO, being practically comfortable in their way, and therefore lacking desparate motivation.

So do you believe in (one) universal Truth?

 

[survive]

**Dogma;

a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.**

Your post doesn’t make any sense, not in the least. Your trying to be clever, but you haven’t even a basic understanding of the language your employing.

It’s a bit late for this reply, but I hereby quote the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Dogma: 2 A principle, belief or statement of idea or opinion, especially one formally or authoritatively considered to be absolute truth…3 A system of such principles or beliefs. (Watch out for such words as “especially” and “as”; they’re not synonyms for “only”.) Dogmatic: 1 pertaining to or characteristic of dogma 2 Characterized by an authoritarian, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles; overpositive.

 

[Detales]

Hi Josie L,

Re: 216. Yes, there can be only One.

 

[josie_L]

Hi Josie L,

Re: 216. Yes, there can be only One.

Good to know, however I see that you wrote “can” instead of “is,” so I’m going to ask again, Is there but (one) universal Truth?

 

[Detales]

Oh, goody, a hair parser, lol!

OK, there can be/IS only One. That is Truth as I see it.