The Confusion of Catholicism

[Partinobodycula]

It depends, and luckily, that judgment call isn’t ours to make, but God’s (and He does know for sure). It comes down to this: if, coming to know what the truth is, one nevertheless rejects it (out of pride, or spite, or hubris, or from deluding oneself), then “invincible ignorance” no longer applies. In other words, at some point in any endeavor, a reasonable person (who is in the presence of a truth) is responsible for recognizing the truth. If your lack of knowledge of the truth doesn’t rise to that standard, then you’re “invincibly ignorant.” If it does rise to that standard, then you’re not.

Thank you for your response. In the end I suppose it’s not within our capacity to judge the hearts of others. But this leads me to wonder about the doctrine of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”. Why would the Church maintain such a doctrine, while at the same time maintaining that salvation is indeed possible outside of the Church. The two positions would appear to be mutually exclusive. Either salvation is possible outside of the Church, or it’s not. This I find confusing.

 

[Partinobodycula]

The Catholic Church does not govern minutiae.

PRmerger, if my salvation, and the salvation of millions of others hinges upon the definition of "innocently ignorant", then it’s meaning is hardly minutiae. On the contrary, it’s perhaps the most important principle in all of Catholicism. Am I saved, or am I not. What more important question could there possibly be?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Thank you for your response. In the end I suppose it’s not within our capacity to judge the hearts of others. But this leads me to wonder about the doctrine of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”. Why would the Church maintain such a doctrine, while at the same time maintaining that salvation is indeed possible outside of the Church. The two positions would appear to be mutually exclusive. Either salvation is possible outside of the Church, or it’s not. This I find confusing.

This is because embracing some basic Christian teachings implicates a basic degree of salvation and this is possible in many churches derived from the Catholic.

As for the varying degrees of being outside such churches so as to not have been exposed to gospel teachings, LG paras 14-16 cover this.

The purpose of evangelisation is to offer an extra chance to those who may need to turn their lives round - often in a way they may only become aware of themselves as they go along - by exposure to teachings and Scriptures and participation in prayers during the communal catechesis experience. Those churches not offering this are like the man who threw the talent back at his master instead of having been trading in it - building up others’ faith - meanwhile, and will get asked questions about why they didn’t care to build others up.

Some people have joined post-baptismal catechesis to benefit from this sort of thing even though they were previously “done”. Learning better is always good.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, if my salvation, and the salvation of millions of others hinges upon the definition of "innocently ignorant", then it’s meaning is hardly minutiae. On the contrary, it’s perhaps the most important principle in all of Catholicism. Am I saved, or am I not. What more important question could there possibly be?

Oh, it is of great import to you. Great import. To be sure. Probably the most important thing in the world.

But for the CC to make any discernment about your choice to be ignorant or not is, indeed, minutiae.

 

[Gorgias]

this leads me to wonder about the doctrine of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”. Why would the Church maintain such a doctrine, while at the same time maintaining that salvation is indeed possible outside of the Church. The two positions would appear to be mutually exclusive. Either salvation is possible outside of the Church, or it’s not. This I find confusing.

Perhaps you’re misunderstanding what the Church says the doctrine means? (In other words, maybe this is a case of exactly the thing that Pumpkin is having a hard time wrapping his head around: that is, the dynamic that, although there are those who do not understand the doctrine, it does not imply that the doctrine is not understandable by anyone.)

The Church says that EENS means this: when we ask the question “what’s the source of salvation?”, there’s only one possible answer: salvation is from Jesus through the Church He founded. Anyone who is saved, whether Catholic or Christian or Buddhist or Muslim or Jew, is saved through Jesus and His Church.

The insight that makes EENS understandable is that the noun is a thing (i.e., salvation) and not a person (i.e., a Christian). In other words, the statement is “outside the Church there is no salvation” and not “a person outside the Church cannot be saved.” That’s a pretty significant distinction.

(In the book I recommended, Sullivan makes the case that the statements that appear to say that EENS is all about condemning non-Christians are actually not saying that. Rather, he asserts that these statements are directed solely at Christians or those who are assumed to have had sufficient opportunity to have come to the recognition of the truth of the Gospel; for these, membership in the Church is necessary for salvation. For others, though, the Church asserts that God offers salvation through His own mercy and by means unknown to us.)

Does that help?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

PRmerger, if my salvation, and the salvation of millions of others hinges upon the definition of "innocently ignorant", then it’s meaning is hardly minutiae. On the contrary, it’s perhaps the most important principle in all of Catholicism. Am I saved, or am I not. What more important question could there possibly be?

I think what PRmerger means in this instance is that the CC isn’t casuistic about individuals’ position. If you talk with priests or experienced catechists they may get an inkling you may benefit from a certain form of catechesis, but how you respond to it is between God and you. Some (e.g spiritual directors) may be able to help you gauge to some extent. Some of us have friends we can chat over this sort of thing with informally or in the context of communal catechesis.

Given that many past and present church members have been only told a fragment of Christian teaching, beyond that point a lot of them are in my (unauthoritative) opinion certainly “innocently ignorant”.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… Anyone who is saved, whether Catholic or Christian or Buddhist or Muslim or Jew, is saved through Jesus and His Church.

… God offers salvation through His own mercy and by means unknown to us. …

Yes, as a result of the prayers of Christians, many people will get saved, often without explicit knowledge of the gospel, but because they are enabled to participate in grace as a fruit of someone’s prayers.

 

[davidv]

PRmerger, if my salvation, and the salvation of millions of others hinges upon the definition of "innocently ignorant", then it’s meaning is hardly minutiae. On the contrary, it’s perhaps the most important principle in all of Catholicism. Am I saved, or am I not. What more important question could there possibly be?

Your salvation does not depend on any definitions. It depends primarily on Christ’s life, death and resurrection, and also on how well you love God and neighbor. “Do you love?” is a much more important question.

 

[PRmerger]

I think what PRmerger means in this instance is that the CC isn’t casuistic about individuals’ position. If you talk with priests or experienced catechists they may get an inkling you may benefit from a certain form of catechesis, but how you respond to it is between God and you. Some (e.g spiritual directors) may be able to help you gauge to some extent. Some of us have friends we can chat over this sort of thing with informally or in the context of communal catechesis.

(Co)incidentally, I happen to be reading this, from apologist John Martignoni, and I think it offers a great parallel.

Martignoni answered the question: " “Did our Lord do all that is necessary for salvation when He died, was buried, and resurrected to pay the full penalty for our sins?”

With this: Yes. Our Lord did all that was necessary for Him to do to redeem us from our sins. He did indeed pay the full price, or penalty, for our sins. “By His stripes we are healed,” (Isaiah 53:5). He did not, however, do all that is necessary for each individual’s salvation. That’s because there is something that each one of us has to do in order to be saved, and He is not going to do it for us, nor will He force us to do it. We have to make a decision to believe in Him and to “observe all that [He] has commanded,” (Matt 28:20).

The parallel is this: the CC has proclaimed everything necessary for your salvation, Partinobodycula, but they do not proclaim what is necessary for your individual salvation.

You are responsible for that.

 

[guanophore]

How do they know that she knows?

They have no way of knowing, unless they investigate!

I think morality is objective and external. Maybe that is common ground?

Yes, I believe it is.

I have another idea. The eucharist is deeply non-intuitive. A man holds up and object and says “Behold (the lamb of) God!” Wow…our intuitions scream against this, I think. Maybe not. So, in order to accept that God is an object, we learn to suppress our intuitions, and we associate that suppression with Godliness or holiness or the sacred. Is that a better explanation?

I suppose. I do understand your point.

You’re totally right! Thanks for helping me realize that I shouldn’t care. If I can’t manage to keep all the big laws perfectly, why should I care about what some dusty book detailing all the rules of excommunication says? It makes no sense. Thanks for freeing me.

Really, it makes no sense.

Some Catholics think the Church mandates that all Catholics receive communion once per year, on pain of mortal sin.

This is the current discipline. But it applies to Catholics who are in good standing, not those who are excommunicated.

PRMerger tells me the faith can be understood by 5th graders, and you say it’s analogous to a PhD in physics. Which is it? Who is right? How do I know that you know?

Why can’t it be both? Simple enough for a child to wade, and deep enough for a lifetime of study.

 

[guanophore]

I am not saying you are violent. Catholicism, or any exclusivist religion, is itself violent in so far as it dooms to eternal torture those who disagree.

I don’t know about other religions, but Catholicism teaches that God created humankind out of HIs love, for eternal fellowship with Himself. Yet He did not want slaves or compulsion, so He created us with free will, so that we can choose to be with HIm, or not. Those who choose not to be with God for eternity may seem to those of us who prefer to be with God as eternally tortured, but they may be content with their choice. I know many who are, in this life, content with it, and perhaps they will be for eternity.

Now, maybe Lumen Gentium opens up a “loop hole” for those who are invincibly ignorant but heretics and apostates are still doomed.

What do you mean “doomed”? Heretics and Apostates willingly and knowingly choose to abandon what God has revealed about himself. It is their privilege to do so.

I do not think it is possible to make a case that someone like me is not extremely likely to go to hell, unless “invincible ignorance” is a very wide category.

It would be inappropriate for anyone to undertake to make such a case. We are not at liberty (and neither is the Church) to determine who is “likely to go to hell”. We can point out which behaviors God has indicated will separate us from Him. We are to pray for every soul, because God desires all to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.

The problem is, it’s an ambiguous designation. It is impossible to determine the extent of someone’s ignorance objectively or subjectively. The demand to convert thus works insidiously. How can I know if I’m invincibly ignorant? I can’t! Therefore, I must spend my entire life trying to convince myself that Catholicism is the truth, or I will prove that I’m not invincibly ignorant! I can’t escape. I can’t close Pandora’s box.

Only God can know our hearts. I think, though, that you are arrogantly taking on the job that belongs to the Holy Spirit. It is He who convicts us of the Truth, not we ourselves. It is up to us to have a humble attitude of teachablity, and His to bring our hearts to the One Faith.

  Modern Catholics are a subset of "Catholics" as a whole. Who is right, when it comes down to it? I'm not judging Catholicism based on one subgroup, I'm saying that it is impossible to judge because all we have are subgroups each making claims to be the "real" Catholics.

You seem very determined, for some reason, to vociferously deny that Catholicism is defined by what Jesus taught, and what He committed through the Apostles to the church, once for all in the first century. What any one Catholic or group of Catholics thinks now, or anytime in the last 2000 years, is really irrelevant. There is only ONE FAITH.

Perhaps this erroneous notion that people’s opinions form the faith keeps you from having to embrace it? Catholicism is not a consensus or a democracy. It is a theocracy.

I of course cannot demonstrate that the “Church” wants people to believe whatever, because I can’t determine what “they” actually teach due to the contradictions.

This is a large heap of pungent organic matter. No one who has read the catechism coudl make such a statement. No one who is really sincere about learning the faith could say such a thing.

The more people you exclude from the definition “Catholic” the clearer it becomes of course. “Hate” is how we form these subgroups and give ourselves clarity.

Every person who has been baptized Catholic has an obligation to study the faith into which they are baptized. If you refuse to move beyond a childlike concept of the faith, don’t blame it on others who are also poorly catechized. Take responsibility at least, and have the temerity to admit that the Catholic Church teaches ONE FAITH and it is not subject to the opinions of her members, ,or defined by their lack of proper understanding of it.

Wait, if everyone is going to heaven if they’re good and honestly seek God, regardless of their religious beliefs, then what purpose does evangelization serve? Is Catholic life really so much better than other forms of life? If it all works out in the end, why bother?

Indeed. Embrace rather the sin of indifferentism.

Where did these popes, councils, saints, fathers, and doctors get these ideas, if it has always been clear from the beginning?

There has been a need for clarity in many areas.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Pumpkin, and Partino, I have spotted a thread on sin and hell, which contains some interesting things on salvation, I hope it helps you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=997225

 

[guanophore]

 EENS was first expressed in the 3rd century AD.

This seems to discount Biblical evidence, as well as the first two century testimonies.

Even then, it wasn’t doctrine, but rather, was the theological opinion that would later become doctrine.

How do you figure this? Doctrine comes from Christ. There is no salvation outside of Christ. He only has one Body. All who are saved are saved through His One Body, the Church.

So, you can’t expect a statement that was made a century earlier to be taken as an expression of a doctrine that hadn’t yet been developed, can you?

Of course you can! That is like saying references to the Trinity before the Council were not valid.

Sorry -- it's unreasonable to look at earlier statements retroactively as if they were an exposition of later doctrine.

I am not sure I would characterize it this way, but the Church cannot later “develop” anything that was not part of the initial deposit of faith. Any historical examination of a doctrine will involve looking at earlier statements in the light of the understanding that has developed.

I wasn’t able to find this text through a Google search. Since you quoted it, perhaps you can find it in context for us?

I found it in the Verbum Catholic Document Library.

The Necessity of Union with the Church

[From epistle (2) “Dilectionis vestrae” to the schismatic bishops of Istria, about 585]

247 [DS 468] … Do not (therefore) because of a love of ostentation, which is always next to pride, remain in the vice of obstinacy; since in the day of judgment no one can excuse himself.…
For although it is evident from the word of the Lord Himself in the Sacred Gospel [cf. Matt. 16:18] where the Church is established, let us hear nevertheless what the blessed Augustine, mindful of the opinion of the same Lord, has explained. For he says that the Church of God is established among those who are known to preside over the apostolic sees, through the succession of those in charge, and whoever separates himself from the communion or authority of these sees, is shown to be in schism. And following additional remarks (he says): “If you are put outside, for the name of Christ you will also die. Suffer for Christ among the members of Christ; clinging to the body, fight for the head.” [DS 469] But the blessed Cyprian … among other things, says the following: “The beginning starts from unity, and the primacy is given to PETER, so that the Church and the chair of Christ may be shown (to be) one: and they are all shepherds, but the flock, which is fed by the Apostles in unanimous agreement, is shown to be one.” And after a few (remarks he adds): “Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church believe that he has the faith? Does he who deserts and resists the chair of PETER, on which the Church was founded, have confidence that he is in the Church?” Likewise after other remarks (he asserts): “They cannot arrive at the reward of peace, because they disrupt the peace of the Lord by the fury of discord.… Those who were not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God, cannot remain with God; although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be [for them] that crown of faith, but the punishment of faithlessness, not a glorious result (of religious virtue), but the ruin of despair. Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned.… For the crime of schism is worse than that which they [commit] who have offered sacrifice, who, nevertheless, having been disposed to penance for their sins prayed to God with the fullest satisfaction. In this case the Church is sought and solicited; in the other the Church is opposed. So in this case he who has fallen, has injured only himself; in the other, who attempts to cause a schism deceives many by dragging (them) with himself. In this case there is the loss of one soul; in the other there is danger to many. Certainly the one knows that he has sinned and laments and bewails (it); the other puffed up with pride in his sin and pluming himself on the sins themselves, separates sons from their mother, seduces the sheep from the shepherds, disturbs the sacraments of God, and, whereas the former having stumbled sinned once, the latter sins daily. Lastly although the lapsed, if afterwards he acquired martyrdom, is able to secure the promises of the kingdom; if the other is slain outside of the Church, he cannot attain to the rewards of the Church.”

 

[Gorgias]

This seems to discount Biblical evidence, as well as the first two century testimonies.

As an expression of doctrine, it dates to the 3rd century. Therefore, any (non-Scriptural) reference prior to that time might be an expression that (later) became doctrine, but we can’t call it an expression of doctrine. Specifically, we can’t hold an earlier assertion to the standard of ‘doctrine’ – it might be an assertion that led to a later statement of doctrine, but on its own, we can’t say that it rises to the level of doctrine (or should be treated as such).

How do you figure this? Doctrine comes from Christ.

But not all statements – prior to being defined as ‘doctrine’ – can be called ‘doctrine’ themselves.

Of course you can! That is like saying references to the Trinity before the Council were not valid.

No – but what we can say is that earlier references that anticipated the later doctrine weren’t, themselves, actual doctrine. That’s all I’m saying here.

I am not sure I would characterize it this way, but the Church cannot later “develop” anything that was not part of the initial deposit of faith.

I’m gonna quibble here: no, I don’t think you’re right. The Deposit of Faith includes Sacred Tradition (which is the Apostolic Teaching of the apostles and their successors). Therefore, the apostolic teaching of the magisterium – whether this teaching was ‘initial’ or ‘subsequent’ to any arbitrary time – is, in fact, part of the Deposit of Faith. The expression of magisterial teaching, then, is Sacred Tradition, regardless when it’s expressed.

From epistle (2) “Dilectionis vestrae” to the schismatic bishops of Istria, about 585]

And after a few (remarks he adds): “Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church believe that he has the faith? Does he who deserts and resists the chair of PETER, on which the Church was founded, have confidence that he is in the Church?” Likewise after other remarks (he asserts): “They cannot arrive at the reward of peace, because they disrupt the peace of the Lord by the fury of discord.… Those who were not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God, cannot remain with God;

Thanks for locating this!

Of course, it continues to prove my point against PC’s: EENS doesn’t deal with non-Christians, but it does address Christians who have left the faith and asserted contrary doctrines!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Permit me to be interested in your beliefs. Am I right in thinking you are not talking about secular laws here.

As for hoping people will cotton onto these things of their own accord, once Noahidism catches on in larger numbers it might manifest the same divisions and (on the part of some) negative emotions towards outsiders as you have observed among catholics.

These verses pertain:

[Jeremiah 31:33-34]

33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

As for “teach” and “know” in verse 34 what it means is teach and know as external and intellectual content. That is because it is in the Old Testament.

When we have Jesus and the Holy Spirit we have got to know Him in the sense of being introduced, personally.

That’s why New Testament evangelising isn’t getting people to agree with us, it is giving them the opportunity to be shown a person like Philip did Nathaniel and Andrew did Simon Peter.

There is no such thing as “Noahidism.” It isn’t a religion. There is no clergy, no official dogma, etc. Everyone on earth is a Noahide because we are all bound by God’s covenant with Noah. I personally believe that God communicated more details to Moses and the ancient sages than is recorded in the Torah. I believe it, but I can’t prove it, and I don’t expect anyone to believe it. To be a self-conscious Noahide is to recognize the one God, and to believe that the Jews are his people and that they received the Torah from him. If a census recorder were to come to my door and ask me for a religion I would say “none” because I do not consider myself a member of a religion though I do have faith-based beliefs.

I am talking about secular laws. I believe that we will never have world-wide peace until all governments uphold the Noahide laws at minimum. I believe it is my moral duty to vote and do what I can to influence my corner of the world to obey God’s basic commandments as a matter of law and order.

To be a Noahide is simply to be a human being who understands God, morality, life, the universe, etc through the tradition of the Jewish people. You are already a Noahide. No need to convert. In so far as you obey God’s basic commandments, you’re good to go! I believe the vast majority of human beings do their best to be good and do what is right.

Since becoming self-conscious of my identity, I’ve noticed curious side effects. I know see people of other races and religions differently. I see them as my honest-to-goodness brothers and sisters. As a Catholic I paid lip service to the universal brotherhood of human kind, but I didn’t believe it in my bones. Deep within, I was a racist, religionist, classist, etc. I saw people in my group as “in” and everyone else as “not as good.” Maybe I wasn’t aware of this consciously, but it must have been the case since I look back at myself and see the racism and hatred of others not like myself.

I see now that this world is fundamentally good. God is good. All human beings are his children, disobedient though we sometimes are, there is no place outside of his love and goodness. In order to leave this hatred behind, I had to shed my Catholic beliefs. No longer could I believe in original sin, salvation, endless hell, exclusivism, etc. These beliefs caused hatred to grow in me. They had to be uprooted so that I could love others. No, not say “sure I love you…now be just like me” but really love others in the sense that I recognize them as another self.

In many ways, to be a Noahide is to be the inverse of an anti-semite. I find anti-semitism both fascinating and horrifying, because it seems to be an utterly irrational form of hate. This is why I took Sartre’s ideas about anti-semitism and wanted to discuss whether they could also explain the anti-humanism of Catholicism. I am trying to explain, trying to understand.

 

[guanophore]

In the end I suppose it's not within our capacity to judge the hearts of others.

Exactly. Only God can know the hearts of His creatures.

But this leads me to wonder about the doctrine of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”. Why would the Church maintain such a doctrine, while at the same time maintaining that salvation is indeed possible outside of the Church.

This is a common misunderstanding of the doctrine. Both of these are not true.

The church maintains the doctrine because we are not at liberty to jettison any of the Teachings of Jesus that are part of the once for all divine deposit of faith given to the Church. It is our duty, responsibility, and privilege to keep faithfully all that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

There is no salvation outside of Christ, and Christ is one with His Church. Therefore, all those who are saved are brought into the Church.

The two positions would appear to be mutually exclusive. Either salvation is possible outside of the Church, or it’s not. This I find confusing.

I agree. It is an inappropriate expression of the doctrine.

There are souls that are saved who are not visibly Catholic, and some that are not even visibly Christian. God can save whoever He likes, however He wants, but He has chosen to save them through Christ, and Christ, through the Church. So we understand that, by some mystery that we cannot see or necessarily understand, these persons are members of His One Body, the Church.

… if my salvation, and the salvation of millions of others hinges upon the definition of "innocently ignorant", then it’s meaning is hardly minutiae.

I think you are referring to the term "invincibly ignorant’. The Church teaches that every human being has a moral obligation to seek and to find their Creator, and His plan for their life.

On the contrary, it’s perhaps the most important principle in all of Catholicism. Am I saved, or am I not. What more important question could there possibly be?

For Catholics it is not, since we do not incorporate the modern (heretical) views that salvation can be assurred. For us, our eternal destiny remains a matter of choice up until we depart from this life. We can either walk with God, or without Him. In the end, it is He that judges our souls and not ourselves.

Your salvation does not depend on any definitions. It depends primarily on Christ’s life, death and resurrection, and also on how well you love God and neighbor. “Do you love?” is a much more important question.

I was just thinking the same thing. Jesus said the greatest commandment is:

36*“Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38This is the greatest and first commandment. 39And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matthew 22:36–40

This is much more important that definitions, and trying to figure out whether or not one is “saved”.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I don’t understand those two hyper-uber-falutin words but your OP made good enough sense to me to be getting on with!

Apology in your 275 as it stands accepted. Now go on to the rest of my 272 and choose to answer the 10% of the responses that take the real, underlying realities of the argument forward the best. Build on what we have got (those few of us) not what we haven’t got.

You were told a lot of hollow waffle in which hell featured without context or meaning, and are perturbed your family have got an eccentric hobby of churchgoing (which you could just as well humour ). If your family are nice to rub along with, rub along with them!

My family members are not “CAF Catholics” either. Basically, my family doesn’t bother me. They all have contradictory and confusing (heterodox by CAF standards) beliefs. That’s OK, whatever. What bothers me are the statements by the saints, fathers, doctors, theologians, etc. They fed me what you call “hollow waffle.” When I discovered them, I became increasingly “orthodox” until I came out the other side! LOL.

You could inspire your family to be curious themselves (in their own time) if you are straightforward. You could be a great evangeliser for real truth but not if you are as sarcastic with them as you (sometimes) have been with us. You may have felt that some of us “deserved” it but by so doing you were in fact hurtful and mean-spirited to yourself more than anyone.That prayer you prayed when you were 12 - maybe I’m part of the answer to it now, so please don’t get overly distracted by every minor eddy involving everybody else.

I don’t evangelize for “real truth” because it is faith based and not fact based. Do I believe I have a more clear vision of reality now? Absolutely. Can I prove it? Absolutely not. Since I can’t prove it, and the history of “evangelization” is synonymous with violence, death, chaos, oppression, and other nasty things, I’ve decided it isn’t worth it. If God wants someone to believe something, he will accomplish it, he doesn’t need our help.

If you post on CAF you will run a colossal risk - that someone from the other side of the world who isn’t a “CAF type” suddenly turns up in the middle of it.

It’s also good to critique what seemed to be the assumptions of our parents and grandparents, now that we are of age ourselves. Maybe it was them that had the uber-hyper-complicated way of expressing themselves, not your PP after all! Certainly enough to make a 12-year old’s heart heavy!

Everyone else, please! Some of your responses haven’t been important enough to worry how PC responded to them.

You’re right. 90% of the respondents don’t understand my thesis in this thread. I allowed myself to become frustrated and got myself censured. I’m not sure how many posts I’m allowed to make until my censure is lifted, and I don’t want to waste them, so here goes.

The hyper-specific uber-Catholics are the ones who dreampt up all these dogmas in the first place. Councils and popes and saints and martyrs and miracle-workers and visionaries, etc. Real everyday Catholics on the ground have absolutely no clue what their founders thought. I think it’s a good thing actually! I know that my reading of what I thought of at the time as “true Catholicism” brought me nothing but misery, anxiety, hatred of God, and despair.

But, I must acknowledge here that God has rescued me. I remember sometimes I would literally groan “I want to be free!!!” while trying to spiritually bludgeon myself into believing Catholicism. I am free now, thanks to God. This is going to sound ridiculous, but the most freeing thought was that if the Catholic Church’s morbid saints, popes, councils, doctors, and fathers wanted to come after me and condemn me, well then the Old Testament God would get them, and heaven knows you don’t get on the Old Testament God’s bad side.

O Lord, hearken to my prayer, lend ear to my supplications; with Your faith, answer me with Your righteousness. And do not come to judgment with Your servant, for no living being will be innocent before You. For an enemy pursued my soul; he crushed my soul to the earth; he has made me dwell in dark places like those who are long dead. And my spirit enwrapped itself upon me; within me my heart is appalled. I remember the days of yore; I meditate over all Your works; I speak of the work of Your hands.I spread out my hands to You; my heart is like a weary land to You forever. Answer me quickly, O Lord, my spirit pines. Do not hide Your countenance from me, lest I be likened to those who descend into the pit. Let me hear Your kindness in the morning, for I hope in You; let me know the way in which I am to go, for to You I have lifted up my soul. Save me from my enemies, O Lord; to You I have hidden. Teach me to do Your will for You are my God; may Your good spirit lead me in an even land. For the sake of Your name, O Lord, revive me; with Your righteousness, deliver my soul from distress. And with Your kindness, You shall cut off my enemies, and You shall destroy all the oppressors of my soul, for I am Your servant.

-Psalm 143

 

[PRmerger]

The hyper-specific uber-Catholics are the ones who dreampt up all these dogmas in the first place.

Well, that’s like saying that hyper-speciic, uber Scientists are the ones who dreamt up all the dogmas in here in the first place:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

My family members are not “CAF Catholics” either. Basically, my family doesn’t bother me. They all have contradictory and confusing (heterodox by CAF standards) beliefs. That’s OK, whatever. What bothers me are the statements by the saints, fathers, doctors, theologians, etc. They fed me what you call “hollow waffle.” When I discovered them, I became increasingly “orthodox” until I came out the other side! LOL.

I don’t evangelize for “real truth” because it is faith based and not fact based. Do I believe I have a more clear vision of reality now? Absolutely. Can I prove it? Absolutely not. Since I can’t prove it, and the history of “evangelization” is synonymous with violence, death, chaos, oppression, and other nasty things, I’ve decided it isn’t worth it. If God wants someone to believe something, he will accomplish it, he doesn’t need our help.

You’re right. 90% of the respondents don’t understand my thesis in this thread. I allowed myself to become frustrated and got myself censured. I’m not sure how many posts I’m allowed to make until my censure is lifted, and I don’t want to waste them, so here goes.

The hyper-specific uber-Catholics are the ones who dreampt up all these dogmas in the first place. Councils and popes and saints and martyrs and miracle-workers and visionaries, etc. Real everyday Catholics on the ground have absolutely no clue what their founders thought. I think it’s a good thing actually! I know that my reading of what I thought of at the time as “true Catholicism” brought me nothing but misery, anxiety, hatred of God, and despair.

But, I must acknowledge here that God has rescued me. I remember sometimes I would literally groan “I want to be free!!!” while trying to spiritually bludgeon myself into believing Catholicism. I am free now, thanks to God. This is going to sound ridiculous, but the most freeing thought was that if the Catholic Church’s morbid saints, popes, councils, doctors, and fathers wanted to come after me and condemn me, well then the Old Testament God would get them, and heaven knows you don’t get on the Old Testament God’s bad side.

-Psalm 143

How do you read the OT and reject hell?

CAF infractions are time based. At least that has been my experience.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I see a lot of things I like in your last two posts Pumpkin (but that’s just me )

Shall reply later if I’ve got time