R
Reepicheep
Guest
Because when it was a doctrinal statement the pope or bishop* said so. *
And if there was any doubt on this point the one in doubt could ask.
- Status
And if there was any doubt on this point the one in doubt could ask.
G
guanophore
Guest
Oh.
I thought you were promoting indifferentism.
And who defines which “differences” are legitimate?
Who determines what that harmony looks like and acts like? Ecumenism does not mean that we abandon the doctrines of the faith, or act against the teachings of the church so that we don’t hurt anyone’s feelings.
I think this question is based on a false premise. You seem to be assuming that, if we do not find “understanding” of points of view that contradict the teachings of the faith, or recognize “good intentions” in others that there is some kind of resentment or unforgiveness at work. This is not the case. People who choose to reject the teachings of Jesus will be in need of His forgiveness, but that does not mean that I have to treat them uncharitably, or in any way that bears an unforgiving attitude. People are free to reject Christ.
You seem to be speaking from the premise that failure to repent and believe is a cause for blame and resentment. I don’t think this is true. It is not our place to condemn the unrepentant or the unbeliever. They are condemned already. It is for us to love them and pray for them.
Maybe I have lost some of the context for this, but it seems to me that it depends upon what “addressing the sins of others” and “call to correct” means. There are massive differences inside and outside the community of faith, inside the family and out.
That all depends upon whether we are in right relationship with God and His Church. There are many actions/attitudes/beliefs that automatically excommunicate a person.
There is a big difference between being a sinner in a state of repentance, and a sinner persisting in a sinful lifestyle while defending it. I want to be in communion with the former, but not the latter.
There is a big difference between being ignorant and trying to learn/grow, and ignorance that is resistant to enlightenment.
Nothing can be further from the truth. Communion occurs in adherance to right doctrine. Doctrine is determined by God. Those who do not accept what He has revealed will not be in communion. The “beholders” don’t get to decide that, the Creator does.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Really? Can you give an example of self-imposed blindness? A scenario?
So, the topic of this thread is the “confusion of Catholicism”. My answer to such “confusion” is that we have a common faith based on commitment to follow Christ (Baptism), profession of the creed, sharing in the Eucharist, and I add that we are committed to bringing forth the Kingdom.
I find nothing in doctrine that says God’s mercy may be overruled by His justice. Indeed, in my own view God’s justice begins with mercy for all people, including those who carry out injustice. That said, it is certainly acceptable for a Catholic to deem that God’s mercy can be overruled by His justice. A person could believe that way yet have a life dedicated to following Jesus, share in the Eucharist, profess the creed, and be committed to building the Kingdom.
Do you see what I mean? “Confusion” in terms of the details are not a problem, we can all approach the details with humility and charity. What we are using here is words, and we may even be saying the same thing with slightly different vocabularies, arranging the concepts differently.
Communion is a function of desire for communion, right David? Do you want to be in communion with me, with my differing set of opinions, or do you not? I wish communion with you, do you wish the same? Can you prove with me that “confusion” does not ultimately lead to disunity?
God Bless your day, David!
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning, guanophore!Oh.
I thought you were promoting indifferentism.
And who defines which “differences” are legitimate?
In my own experience, all “differences” are founded in the individual’s conception of love, charity, mercy, justice, etc., all positive. So, I take the approach that all differences are legitimate, and then when we start defining terms and sharing experiences a greater harmony, a deeper harmony is discovered. I am not saying that there are not some misconceptions to be encountered, but those misconceptions can be worked through. It takes a lot of will, time, and humility.
Pumpkin Cookie, though he has left the Church, has legitimate differences in the context of his experiences and exposure to the Church.
For sure, guanophore, I am using the term “legitimate” much more loosely than most!
If you disagree vehemently, I understand. I would find, for starters, your disagreement legitimate. The goal is the harmony, as Pope Benedict said. It starts with a *will * for harmony.I agree with your views on ecumenism. What does harmony look and act like? Harmony is understanding the other person’s point of view so well that I can say, “I would say and believe the same thing if I had their experiences and scope”. Fortunately, doctrine is not based on any one person’s experiences. Harmony is found in the basics: Love, mercy, charity, forgiveness, the sanctity of life, all of the things that we value. What do you think?
Looks like I gave the wrong impression again. Sorry about that. The question was “would you agree that in using the gift of understanding, and finding good intentions, we are on the road to forgiveness of others?” The question is only applicable when we hold something against someone.
Yes, we are not to “treat them uncharitably, or in any way that bears an unforgiving attitude”. The question is, what is our actual attitude? Do you see Pumpkin Cookie’s point?
continued
D
davidv
Guest
Where have you looked? Parable of the sheep and goats?
Sounds like a dumbed down version of the communion the Church teaches. See CCC PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER THREE
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
ARTICLE 9
“I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH”
- Paragraph 5. The Communion of Saints
O
OneSheep
Guest
continued from above
In my view, when we say that people are “condemned” by unbelief, we are talking about slavery. Those that are engrossed in the functions of nature: desire for wealth, status, unlimited sex, etc. are slaves, “condemned” to being dead robots. Does God ever withhold forgiveness? In my view: No.
Do you see the issue at hand? We may profess that it is not our place to blame and resent, but if we are to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect” does that mean perfection involves blaming, resenting, condemning, etc., anyone?
Now, if I may again add: If you see that God does indeed condemn, such is a “legitimate difference” from my own view. What about you, guanophore? Can you see my difference as “legitimate”? If not, do you have a will to find a deeper harmony?
Pope Francis Verified account
@Pontifex
God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us.
March 19, 2015
Even when our human institution excommunicates, God’s will for communion is always there, guanophore. And the human, at his very deepest “true self”, wills communion too.
Again, (ad nauseum, perhaps) your view is also legitimate. I can understand a view that puts a great deal of emphasis on adherence to doctrine.
Thanks!
Again, do you see Pumpkin Cookie’s point? Yes, it is scriptural that they are “condemned”, but what does that mean? Does it mean that God condemns them? If so, and if this is the belief of all Christians (and people of other religions too), then Pumpkin Cookie is right, that the Catholic Church and other religions bring forth an attitude of condemnation regardless of how we treat people.
In my view, when we say that people are “condemned” by unbelief, we are talking about slavery. Those that are engrossed in the functions of nature: desire for wealth, status, unlimited sex, etc. are slaves, “condemned” to being dead robots. Does God ever withhold forgiveness? In my view: No.
Do you see the issue at hand? We may profess that it is not our place to blame and resent, but if we are to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect” does that mean perfection involves blaming, resenting, condemning, etc., anyone?
Now, if I may again add: If you see that God does indeed condemn, such is a “legitimate difference” from my own view. What about you, guanophore? Can you see my difference as “legitimate”? If not, do you have a will to find a deeper harmony?
Hmm. Are you thinking that there are times that the underlying reality is not a call to forgive and correct when it comes to addressing the sins of others?
So, you would rather not be in communion with some sinners, and I am more inclusive. I understand the resistance of others, and I know that my own resistance to such resistance would only exacerbate the problem. To me, “turning the cheek” means changing the reaction equation. That said, I say that your view is legitimate too.
Well, you have yet to put forth any doctrine that says that communion is based on adherence to doctrine. I agree that adherence to doctrine is important, but again, doctrine is words. To me, Communion is based on Eucharist, not in complete doctrinal agreement. Doctrine is guided by the Spirit. As revelation unfolds, doctrine clarifies and evolves. These are temporal things. Love, inclusion, is unchanging.
Pope Francis Verified account
@Pontifex
God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us.
March 19, 2015
Even when our human institution excommunicates, God’s will for communion is always there, guanophore. And the human, at his very deepest “true self”, wills communion too.
Again, (ad nauseum, perhaps) your view is also legitimate. I can understand a view that puts a great deal of emphasis on adherence to doctrine.
Thanks!
O
OneSheep
Guest
If you would like to read a great book (with imprimatur) that addresses the parable of sheep and goats, I highly recommend Good Goats: Healing Our Image of God.
While you have been determined to correct me, you overlooked some very important questions I asked. Here they are again:
Communion is a function of desire for communion, right David? Do you want to be in communion with me, with my differing set of opinions, or do you not? I wish communion with you, do you wish the same?
Think of this David, it is very natural to base ingroup and outgroup on what we like in common. Jesus calls us to break down the barriers of affiliation based on such commonality, do you remember how he ate with “sinners” and embraced the Samaritan outgroup? Try making humanity your “ingroup”! Quite the challenge, right? You can do this.
Indeed, I am in communion with you, that is my attitude. Though you see God a bit differently, I understand from where you are coming, and I know that it is a good place.
Sorry if that sounds preachy; I am being sincere, David. See my outstretched hand; will you grasp it?
D
davidv
Guest
If you are leading me down a primrose path, no way. The Church has my hand.
The Truth is the objective source of communion, not desire. It has nothing to do with in and out groups. For example, I will not be in communion with the local street gang that uses murder as an initiation rite.
G
guanophore
Guest
A good example can be found below in your post:
The Scriptures and the history of God’s interaction with humans are full of examples of this.
Jer. 5:21 “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.”
My answer is the “confusion” that is accused does not, in fact, exist. Catholic doctrine is One, Integrated, and opposes confusion. I like your answer too, though.
That depends upon whether your differing sets of opinions is contrary to the doctrines of the faith. I want to be in communion with those who exist in unity with the faith.
Confusion does lead to disunity. Unity is achieved by adherance to the Truth. The degree to which people drift away from the Truth is the degree that separation and confusion result.
I dont know if you read the top of the thread, but the assertion is that confusion exists in Catholicism because there are so many different opinions. The Catholic faith was transmitted to us by Christ, so people’s individual opinions are not relevant. Either one accepts the faith wholly and completely, or one begins unravelling the seamless garment by picking and choosing.
G
guanophore
Guest
Wow. That may mean that you are very isolated (not exposed to much) or that you have really strong filters(rose colored glasses). More power to you, I guess.
Is this also how you account for Satan’s fall from Heaven? His conception of these ideals just differed from God’s?
Kumbayah!
Well, since you consider all differences legitimate, then I guess that goes without saying.
I think your rose colored glasses have very effective lenses.
Apparently if I disagree with his point I am being resentful and arrogant?
G
guanophore
Guest
No, I don’t think you or Pumpkin are right. There is no relationship between a person being condemned to eternal damnation for refusing to believe in God and other members of the Body of Christ having an attitude of condemnation.
We are separated from eternal life with God by sin. We can be saved by grace, through faith. Those who refuse the grace remain in their sins. This is not something formulated by human beings, but by God. It also does not need to create an attitude of condemnation in members of the Church.
Well, we all have a belly button, and there are as many opinions …
People who refuse the grace of God bring condemnation upon themselves.
I am questioning the legitimacy of addressing the sins of others.
No, OS, this is not accurate. Communino has nothing to do with what I rather, or not rather. Communion occurs when people are in right relationship with Christ.
You can create your own notion of communion, and make it as “inclusive” as you wish, but that changes nothing objectively. Communion is a spiritual state that occurs as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit. Communion has nothing to do with one person accept ing another’s as “legitimate”. It has to do with persons embracing the One Truth revealed by Christ. You seem to want to make this between people, but it is not. It is between each soul and God. Communion between us is a side effect.
Ok. I guess you are like Pumpkin, in that you cannot accept the evidence that exists.
No, OS, doctrine is not “words” The teachings of Christ (the origin and source of the doctrine) is a personal revelation of Himself to humanity. It is rooted in relationship.
Rejecting parts of what He has revealed wounds our relationship with HIm.
Well this is good to know. I realize with clarity now that you are taking a position that is contrary to the Catholic faith, so I think it is time for me to discontinue this conversation. I shall commend you to your “views” and your rose colored glasses.
O
OneSheep
Guest
David, I am just reaching out my hand in communion. It sounds like you are feeling fearful. Is this the way you are during the sign of peace too? Do you hesitate to welcome and befriend? Would you turn down the reaching hand of a gangster too?
Fear not, David! People do not intend to lead you astray, and if they did, you have your own solid conscience to guide you. Have you had many experiences where people take advantage of you, misuse your trust? That would explain a lot about your decision not to shake my hand. For some reason, you fear me, is that right?
I am with you on not joining the local street gang, but I am a fellow Catholic, David. Christ is present in all of us, remember?
So, will you? A simple yes or no will suffice.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
In God’s real cafeteria we are invited to work our way through the whole menu but not necessarily in one “sitting”, which wouldn’t suit the digestion of some of us.
When was the last time you “unravelled”, “picked” and “chose” from your spaghetti bowl?
(A plate of spaghetti which might take you ten minutes, here represents a lifetime.)
Don’t do life with a white shirt on!
A
Aloysium
Guest
You are making this personal and weird.
This is a public forum meant to foster discussion, so where I would mind my own business under other circumstance, I’m going to weigh in about what you say.
I do this because matters of dogma central to the faith, are involved.
While you are a Catholic, having been baptized, since you do not believe in some basic teachings of the church, you are a wayward one - one lost sheep.
Forget about bringing people to you, follow Christ.
And don’t worry about David; he has Christ by his side and he doesn’t seem fearful at all to me.
Sorry about the intrusion, but your post seemed to call for a comment.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Do you feel OK about the fact that people, such as myself, who are very knowledgeable about Catholicism but find it to be false, are going to burn in hell forever?
Or, are you happy about that?
Or, are you upset about that?
Or, do you simply not care?
If you are OK with it, if you are happy about it, or if you simply don’t care, it seems impossible that you wouldn’t be filled with hate. Again, not a childish, tantrum inducing hate, but the same hate that ignored the Jews going to the gas chambers with a “meh, what are you going to do” and a shrug.
If you are upset about it, why? Do you know better than God? Are your Church’s teachings mistaken here? At least you wouldn’t be essentially grounded in hate in this case.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Please cite where your source for this teaching.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, I admit that it is out of the ordinary. There is nothing wrong with the personal, Aloysium. We are all real people. Would you rather we all be at arm’s length? I have no intention of “bringing people to me” versus the Church. Is that what it means to you to shake a person’s hand?
I’m not worried about people’s fears, Aloysium, whether they exist or not. We are called to nurture, to love, not worry.
There is a basic teaching of the Church that I do not believe in? Please, let me know what that teaching is.
No intrusion at all! Comment away! Just please remain charitable. Start with the assumption that fellow Catholics believe all the basic teachings, and if something sounds a bit off, ask instead of making assumptions, okay?
Thanks.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
catholic.com/tracts/salvation-outside-the-church
From the above source on Catholic Answer’s own website, with Imprimatur:
I am an apostate. I was born into Catholicism, and upon researching and learning about it, decided it was false. I’m very likely going to hell where I will be tormented forever because of (at the very least, loss of God), according to the Church.
Are you OK with that?
Or doesn’t that sit right with you?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning, Brother! (Sister?)Well this is good to know. I realize with clarity now that you are taking a position that is contrary to the Catholic faith, so I think it is time for me to discontinue this conversation. I shall commend you to your “views” and your rose colored glasses.
Goodness, guanophore, would you do the same for Catholics who disagree with some of the Church’s doctrines? Look at it this way: most Catholics do not know most of Catholic doctrine, and most fall short of complete adherence even when they do know. For those Catholics who do not know much, we don’t know whether they agree or disagree with the doctrines they do not know. So isn’t what really matters not the head, but the heart? We are one body only as much as we at least include all those who profess Christ. Isn’t the attitude of inclusion what is strived for? Yes, we can be protective of doctrine, but do you see the difference between finding a lost sheep and shoving that sheep out of the flock? Is your statement a shove? I stand firm. I stand with open arms! Do you run away praying?
It looks like you omitted the relationship that I showed. I will explain it again. We are called to “be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect”. If our Father condemns people, then condemnation must be perfection. Therefore, the people go ahead and let themselves condemn. Have you never encountered a person in the Church who has a condemning feeling toward others? It is very common, because it is in our nature to condemn others who violate our rulebooks (I am speaking in terms of condemnation as feeling negatively toward someone). In fact, I myself found it perfectly Christian to have negative feelings toward others, and so did Pumpkin Cookie, as he stated. We are all subject to our triggers. If you are still not seeing the relationship, please comment on my specific points here. Note: I am not saying that I am no longer subject to negative feelings; I do know now that when I have them, I am called to understand and forgive.
There was a book I recommended to David, Good Goats: Healing Our Image of God, which has an imprimatur. Perhaps if you read the book, you might have your eyes opened to the broadness of spirituality in our great Church. You don’t have to agree with it, and you probably won’t, but it may broaden your scope.
I agree, it need not create an attitude of condemnation. However, it is in our nature to condemn what we find hurtful or contrary to what is right, all of us do it. The capacity for the attitude is there in all of us. It serves a purpose, but it too can enslave us when we hold a grudge.
Yes, but condemnation by God? That would be one view acceptable in the Church. The other view would be that God loves and forgives unconditionally, just as shown in the Pope’s tweet you left out. I shall put it in again, in case you have forgotten it:
Pope Francis Verified account
@Pontifex
God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us.
March 19, 2015
“Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
“If you hold anything against anyone, forgive them.”
And then there are the verses having to do with fraternal correction.
And if you shut people off, discontinue conversation, tell people they are taking a position contrary to Catholic faith, are you in right relationship with Christ? Is this what Christ asks of us? No, guanophore, I offer the hand to you that I offer to David. I am standing in the pew beside you. Do you turn down my hand? Are you accepting me as part of the body, or are you shutting yourself out? I am not shutting you out. I am offering my hand.
Matthew 25:40New International Version (NIV)
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Guanophore, let me suggest for a moment that “least” has to do with people who are shunned. It is not exclusively so, but if you take Matthew 25:35-40 as a whole, Jesus is addressing our indifference. Shutting out a fellow Catholic, guanophore, based on difference of opinion is a promotion of indifference.
continued
A
Aloysium
Guest
I am all about the ad hominem, finding people far more interesting in their wholeness than merely their ideas.Yes, I admit that it is out of the ordinary. There is nothing wrong with the personal, Aloysium. We are all real people. Would you rather we all be at arm’s length? I have no intention of “bringing people to me” versus the Church. Is that what it means to you to shake a person’s hand?
I’m not worried about people’s fears, Aloysium, whether they exist or not. We are called to nurture, to love, not worry.
There is a basic teaching of the Church that I do not believe in? Please, let me know what that teaching is.
No intrusion at all! Comment away! Just please remain charitable. Start with the assumption that fellow Catholics believe all the basic teachings, and if something sounds a bit off, ask instead of making assumptions, okay?
Thanks.
I have read repeated arguments by you that are counter to certain teachings of the Church.
As a reference to those teaching, I would refer you as a start to this section of the Catechism regarding the nature of sin:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm
No assumptions. I’m just going by what you have written. It may be that your thoughts on the nature of sin have evolved. But speaking about “blind spots” as an explanation of sin sounds like what you have stated earlier that sin is basically ignorance and that no one willingly and knowingly rejects God; i.e. that we do not commit mortal sins.
Whatever. Think what you want. Definitely participate in the Church; that’s great. But from what I’ve read, at certain points your views differ from those to which the Church firmly adheres.
That’s all I want to say on the matter. If I have misunderstood your position, you can post your rebuttal and I won’t comment.
- Status