That Old Freemason Question...

[GEddie]

Could we please quit beating each other over the head with the CCC?

The question at the head of the thread has been answered: the Church and Masonry are irreconcilable. There are no nuances to it, despite those of us who seek nuance everywhere. That particular question is binary.

The issue of contemplative prayer is wholly separate. There are all manner of gradations there. In any case, it’s between the pray-er and our LORD.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Could we please quit beating each other over the head with the CCC?

Exactly! Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

The question at the head of the thread has been answered: the Church and Masonry are irreconcilable. There are no nuances to it, despite those of us who seek nuance everywhere. That particular question is binary.

Perhaps. Then all this is lagniappe.

The issue of contemplative prayer is wholly separate. There are all manner of gradations there. In any case, it’s between the pray-er and our LORD.

First, the issue of contemplative prayer underlies nearly everything else. Not a style of prayer, specifically, but the idea of having a proper prayer life. “Being properly Catechized” seems to mean to learn a lot of facts. There really should be nothing more important that a healthy prayer life, facts or no. (1 Cor 13)

But I must object to the notion that prayer life is out of bounds for discussion and Freemasons aren’t. (in general, not this thread ) The CCC says a Catholic should do something – sounds like it’s between the pray-er and God AND the Church, eh? Just like group membership. It’s all covered, and it annoys me all these people who want to pick and choose what parts of Catholicism they wish to disregard – even when called to their attention – but go around clucking their tongues at other Catholics who may not Catholic enough to suit them. It makes me go into “stick up for Jesus and His friends” mode.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

You call me a heretic again and you’re getting reported.

I don’t see where anyone has been called a heretic here, TEPO.

At any rate, I think we should leave it to the Church to define who’s a heretic.

Of course, we as Catholics ought to be very, very vigilant about espousing and identifying heresy, but that is quite a different animal from calling anyone a heretic.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Of course, we as Catholics ought to be very, very vigilant about espousing and identifying heresy, but that is quite a different animal from calling anyone a heretic.

What’s the difference between calling someone a heretic for their beliefs, compared to telling them that their beliefs are heretical?

I see it as “six of one, half dozen of the other.”

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

No. It doesn’t “obligate” you, but says what you “should” do. I suppose that “should” from the Church. Perhaps if the only thing that matters is avoiding “mortal sin” then what the Church “suggests” is actually quite irrelevant. Honestly, I don’t even know why the Church would teach about the kinds of prayer and compare them to each other. I’m just pointing out what I see to be hypocritical – disregarding CCC here, and enforcing it there. That’s all.

The only type of prayer that the Church proclaims a Catholic should pray is the most perfect prayer, the Divine Liturgy.

The CC has no commentary whatsoever should a Catholic, who attends Mass every Sunday and Holy Days of Obligations, wish to engage in only prayers of petition for the remainder of her life.

That she does only this minimum would appear to me, personally, to be a shame, but the CC has nothing whatsoever to say about this individual.

 

[PRmerger]

What’s the difference between calling someone a heretic for their beliefs, compared to telling them that their beliefs are heretical?

I see it as “six of one, half dozen of the other.”

Alan

Sometimes semantics is very, very important. Distinctions are significant indeed.

Take the difference between these statements:

The Catholic Church is at war with poverty.

vs

The Catholic Church is at war with the poor.

See the difference?

That’s why we talk about heresy and not so much about heretics.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Sometimes semantics is very, very important. Distinctions are significant indeed.

Take the difference between these statements:

The Catholic Church is at war with poverty.

vs

The Catholic Church is at war with the poor.

See the difference?

That’s why we talk about heresy and not so much about heretics.

I see your point using your example, but it seems a material difference here.

Poverty is a condition that goes along with people being poor. But we are not blaming the poor for their poverty. Some people might, and they may be right in some cases, but overall we don’t say that the poor “create” poverty. So we detach the poor from the poverty, because there is not a one-to-one correspondence with “poverty” which is an abstract concept, and “poor” which is what we call members of some group – a defined or undefined group – of people.

So far so good.

But heresy is not an abstract concept, it is a definite combination of words, expressed by a person – and I’ll assume it’s of their own free will they say these thing. So we cannot have “heresy” without “heretics” nor the other way around. So there is a one-to-one correspondence between heresy uttered and the heretics who uttered it.

Alan

 

[jeannetherese]

So there is a one-to-one correspondence between heresy uttered and the heretics who uttered it.

Alan

Perhaps in the spirit of charity, we might think that the person who repeated a heresy was poorly informed? If we take that possibility as our starting point, sharing information might be more helpful than calling our friend a heretic. And, given sufficient information, our friend might come to recognize that his or her statement was not correct and would self correct.
I’ve sure appreciated the charity when it has come my way…

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Perhaps in the spirit of charity, we might think that the person who repeated a heresy was poorly informed? If we take that possibility as our starting point, sharing information might be more helpful than calling our friend a heretic. And, given sufficient information, our friend might come to recognize that his or her statement was not correct and would self correct.
I’ve sure appreciated the charity when it has come my way…

I think that is a healthier way to approach it…

Oh well if otherwise unprovoked I’ll try to let the thread get back toward Freemasons in case they still have anything to hash out.

Alan

 

[TEPO]

I think we may have actually scared those Masons off by now…

 

[PRmerger]

I see your point using your example, but it seems a material difference here.

Poverty is a condition that goes along with people being poor. But we are not blaming the poor for their poverty. Some people might, and they may be right in some cases, but overall we don’t say that the poor “create” poverty. So we detach the poor from the poverty, because there is not a one-to-one correspondence with “poverty” which is an abstract concept, and “poor” which is what we call members of some group – a defined or undefined group – of people.

So far so good.

But heresy is not an abstract concept, it is a definite combination of words, expressed by a person – and I’ll assume it’s of their own free will they say these thing. So we cannot have “heresy” without “heretics” nor the other way around. So there is a one-to-one correspondence between heresy uttered and the heretics who uttered it.

Alan

There also is a one to one correspondence between poverty and the poor. One cannot have poverty without the poor, yes?

Look at it this way–do you see the difference between these 2 statements:

The Church is at war with heresy.

vs

The Church is at war with heretics.

The former is true. The latter is false (although those who are critical of the Church may try to claim that she is at war with heretics, but no educated person will really believe this!)

Thus, we may declare something as heresy (indeed, we are commanded to do so at times!), I do not think we can call someone a heretic (unless the Church has seen fit to do so).

 

[TEPO]

If anyone here believes that I have acted heretically, let them bring it to my attention so we can clear this up.

 

[PRmerger]

If anyone here believes that I have acted heretical, let them bring it to my attention so we can clear this up.

I don’t think anyone here can or will do that.

But if you are saying that dogmas/doctrines can change, you need to understand that this is an incorrect explication of Catholic teaching.

 

[TEPO]

I don’t think anyone here can or will do that.

But if you are saying that dogmas/doctrines can change, you need to understand that this is an incorrect explication of Catholic teaching.

My position was and remains that Canons can and do change.

 

[PRmerger]

My position was and remains that Canons can and do change.

What do you mean by “canons”? Canon law? The canon of Scripture?

 

[TEPO]

What do you mean by “canons”? Canon law? The canon of Scripture?

Canon Law. The disciplines in which the Church governs in the world. Girl altar servers, the changing of the Mass, the decision to not sell indulgences, the way Catechumens become initiated… Things like that -ONLY.

 

[PRmerger]

Canon Law. The disciplines in which the Church governs in the world. Girl altar servers, the changing of the Mass, the decision to not sell indulgences, the way Catechumens become initiated… Things like that -ONLY.

Then no one here ought to accuse you of heresy.

Dogmas, doctrines, teachings of the Church = unchangeable.

 

[TEPO]

Then no one here ought to accuse you of heresy.

Dogmas, doctrines, teachings of the Church = unchangeable.

Agreed, and thank you. By the way, I don’t hold grudges against anyone, for any type of Internet conversations because we’re all just trying to follow God and to help each other on the way. No harm in that as far as I’m concerned.

So whatever was said here, we can all rest assured that we’re trying to do what’s best for each other the best way we know how. My mistake was that I was trying too hard to open-up the Church by claiming that Catechumens should be immediately initiated without proper training. Through the help of others, I’ve come to understand that that’s probably not the best idea. The reason I made that claim was because I thought the Church should be as ‘unlike’ Freemasonry as possible. I suppose I over-reacted. .

 

[PRmerger]

Agreed, and thank you. By the way, I don’t hold grudges against anyone, for any type of Internet conversations because we’re all just trying to follow God and to help each other on the way. No harm in that as far as I’m concerned.

So whatever was said here, we can all rest assured that we’re trying to do what’s best for each other the best way we know how. My mistake was that I was trying too hard to open-up the Church by claiming that Catechumens should be immediately initiated without proper training. Through the help of others, I’ve come to understand that that’s probably not the best idea. The reason I made that claim was because I thought the Church should be as ‘unlike’ Freemasonry as possible. I suppose I over-reacted. .

Ah, I see. Very good, then.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

My mistake was that I was trying too hard to open-up the Church by claiming that Catechumens should be immediately initiated without proper training.

We do it all the time. I had zero training. Nada. Zip. I didn’t even know I existed when the Church accepted me. I like the idea of RCIA, but wouldn’t you think that cradle Catholics maybe should be required to have a little more information than what they hear from the ambo? Why not let outsiders join and learn as they go like we had to?

Like for example, in parishes I know about, preparation for Confirmation is basically a farce. Some good information, along with some inane discussions and activities over who knows how it has anything to do with confirmation or Catholicism in general. A few weeks of enduring boring leaders a couple hours a week, and bam! They get confirmed – and my kids tell me that some others in the class admitted, though not to the leaders or the pastor, that they don’t even believe much of what they are told. So they are hypocrites, but they go through the process to avoid making waves. Can you imagine the parents of a “good catholic child” when the child tells them they really don’t believe in Catholicism so they will not be confirmed? So they don’t. They put on a happy face and eat what they are given, smile and chat a little, and bada boom bada bing.

If we don’t let outsiders join the Church without RCIA, then neither should any Catholic be confirmed without going through training of the equivalent rigor. Why penalize Catholics because they were baptized under the age of reason? If they don’t complete the training, they cannot be confirmed. Why should the rules be different for us v. them? It adds to the illusion (which may be an accurate illusion) that in general converts know more about the Church, and are more enthusiastic about it, than cradle Catholics. If they weren’t totally convinced (and convincing), they wouldn’t have been able to join.

Especially those people who want a “leaner, more devoted” congregation, they should jump on this bandwagon in a snap. Unless they, too, are cradle Catholics.

Alan