The Confusion of Catholicism

[OneSheep]

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.

Communion is not between people? Okay, that is a new one for me. A side effect?

“One Body”

790 Believers who respond to God’s word and become members of Christ’s Body, become intimately united with him: "In that body the life of Christ is communicated to those who believe, and who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ in his Passion and glorification."220 This is especially true of Baptism, which unites us to Christ’s death and Resurrection, and the Eucharist, by which "really sharing in the body of the Lord, . . . we are taken up into communion with him and with one another."221

791 The body’s unity does not do away with the diversity of its members: "In the building up of Christ’s Body there is engaged a diversity of members and functions. There is only one Spirit who, according to his own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives his different gifts for the welfare of the Church."222 The unity of the Mystical Body produces and stimulates charity among the faithful: "From this it follows that if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with him, and if one member is honored, all the members together rejoice."223 Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."224

Do you get it, guanophore? We are all one. That means communion between me and you, that means inclusion.

Ok. I guess you are like Pumpkin, in that you cannot accept the evidence that exists.

Well, I keep asking for doctrinal evidence that communion is based on adherence to teachings rather than Eucharist, but you have yet to provide such “evidence”. Back up your words, please. A person who participates in Eucharist is part of the body. Are you telling those who disagree with a teaching here or there are not? It starts with desire to be one with people; do you desire to be one with the Church, with many of its seemingly lukewarm members?

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.

“Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. The we receive the truth when we meet [it].”

Pope Francis

My point on doctrine, guanophore, is that when we meet the truth, it comes through our own experiences and vocabularies. Sometimes words get in the way, but they need not. A Catholic may encounter doctrine that seems to go against his or her encounter of truth. In that case, it would be a shame for him or her to shun Catholicism based on what is likely to be a concept that needs a lot of explanation. Do you see the problem with making doctrine the center of communion? It is not so, guanophore, it is Eucharist. Our central communion is in Eucharist.

God Bless

 

[OneSheep]

I am all about the ad hominem, finding people far more interesting in their wholeness than merely their ideas.

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.

Hello

Well, if you observe that anyone knowingly and willingly rejects God, simply provide an example, and we can investigate whether or not your assertion is accurate.

Again you make reference to “certain points” that differ from those to which the Church firmly adheres", but you have brought none forth. How can I address whether you have misunderstood my position, if you do not state the part of my position which you disagree with? It may seem that I am making points that differ, and though they may differ from the mainstream, they are not contrary to doctrine. I am presenting an alternative spirituality, and it is certainly not an alternative that originates with me.

People are subject to automatic blindness, a blocking of empathy, when we have strong desire or when we feel resentful. This is part an explanation of why people do evil things. We can discern this by using the gift of Understanding, which we would utilize in addressing whether anyone ever knowingly and willingly rejects God.

The only recent “change” I have made is when I recently had the discussion with my son, who is getting a PhD in philosophy. When I use the word “knowingly”, I am using it in the affective sense, as Jesus did from the cross. I am not using it propositionally, that is, to know “that”. Jesus did not make the propositional statement. A person can know “that” something is wrong, but not know what they are doing in the affective sense. And this, is my observations, is always the case: that no one ever knowingly and willingly rejects God.

Do you see something there that goes against basic teachings?

God Bless

And hey, thanks for being charitable!

 

[Aloysium]

. . . 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?

I don’t know you, but since I know God is all merciful, I would say, “Don’t sweat it”.
Do good and pray. God is Love.

BTW: I see myself as being at greater risk of going to hell since I know what the Church teaches is true.
You have decided based on your reasoning and research that it is false, but you are mistaken.

At any rate, I believe you are here because God is calling you and that it will help you grow in your relationship with Him.
This is the key point of our existence. However, we do not do so alone.
He has given us His church to guide us in our Way, which we travel together, as we will be in the glory of the Beatific Vision where all creation sings His praise

 

[o_mlly]

…
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?

I believe the post is misinterpreted. The post includes:
*However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity. *

If one’s disbelief comes form an earnest attempt to learn and accept with docility the teachings but one’s conscience prevents conformance then the ignorance is innocent.

Those who seek God with sincerity may always be saved. One may never disown their own intelligence and conscience.

From the CCC:
*847 This affirmation “Outside the Church there is no salvation”] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337*

Faith always has a future.

 

[Reepicheep]

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.

Your question is based on a false premise. “You’re factually wrong” does not equal “You’re going to hell.” Nor did Guanophore say that it did.
Catholic teaching explicitly tells us we don’t know the content of another person’s soul and that we are not to sit in judgement over others. You might be closer to Heaven than I am; I don’t know and shouldn’t make assumptions.

I find your last paragraph confusing. Are you really saying that to be unhappy at the thought of someone being in danger of Hell has to mean that I think I “know better than God”?

 

[Reepicheep]

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?

There is a difference between honest doubt and stubborn refusal to admit. The passage you cite has to do with the latter.
Again we don’t know what is in your soul, and we are forbidden to sit in judgement.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think David, along with myself and perhaps other knowledgeable well catechized Catholics here on CAF reject your definition of communion.

Giving the sign of peace does not put people in Communion. Anyone can come to Mass in an excommunicated state and participate in the sign of peace. Being made in the image and likeness of God does not make a person in communion either.

We can be welcoming and befriending to all, but that does not put us in communion with them. REcognizing that we are not in communion with those who are not in right relationship with Christ is not “turning them down”.

You are wrong, people do intend to lead others astray. People love to make up their own definitions and press others into accepting them.

David is right to hold tight to the Church by his hand, and even your recommendation here that he follow his “conscience” is only good to the extent that he does hold fast to what we have received.

 

[guanophore]

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?

First of all, let me say that my personal feelings about the judgments of God are irrelevant. He is our creator, and He has the authority over His creation to implement whatever justice He finds appropriate. It is not my place to entertain emotional sentiment about it.

In addition, I do not know, you do not know, nor can anyone (including the Church) tell you that you “are going to burn in hell forever”. This is between you and God only.

The Chruch teaches that every human soul is given sufficient grace to be saved. Those that reject His grace choose to be separated from Him. In other words, each person chooses this. I may not like people’s choices, ,but I respect their right to make them.

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.

The Jews were coerced into the chambers. No one coerces someone to come to salvation. One must choose for himself.

It is not hateful to respect people’s free will. I may be hurt and sad about their choices, or even angry, but it is their right to choose. I must leave that in His hands.

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.

The Church teaches that we cannot know who is condemned to hell.

 

[guanophore]

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?

You are making the very dangerous and erroneous presumption that communion with you is the same as being in communion with the Church. In doing so, you have set yourself against that the Church teaches about our communion with each other. Shaking hands is not being in communion.

There is a basic teaching of the Church that I do not believe in? Please, let me know what that teaching is.

The basis for being communion

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.

No assumptions are necessary. Your posts have made it clear that your ideas are “off”.

 

[Gorgias]

people, such as myself, who are very knowledgeable about Catholicism but find it to be false, are going to burn in hell forever

Oh, Pumpkin, bless your soul!

Umm… with all due respect, you’re not “very knowledgeable about Catholicism”.

You have knowledge, of a certain sort; but it’s not knowledge of Catholicism. It’s probably knowledge of certain life experiences that have colored your opinion of the Catholic Church (but there’s no way that we can tell exactly what those might be, on this forum). All we know for sure is that you know something, about something akin to Catholicism, but certainly not what the Catholic Church teaches.

So, as a result, you’ve rejected something, but what you’ve rejected isn’t ‘the Catholic Church’. It’s a rejection of something you’ve constructed in your mind. Therefore, you’re not damned to hell; you’re just struggling with a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church is. The ‘confusion’ you’ve been railing against isn’t a confusion ‘of Catholicism’, it’s ‘of what you think Catholicism is’. Big difference, there.

May God bless you with His wisdom.

Blessings,
G.

 

[guanophore]

Good Morning, Brother!  (Sister?)

Goodness, guanophore, would you do the same for Catholics who disagree with some of the Church’s doctrines?

It depends upon the circumstances. I consider those who reject some teachings of the Church to be Protestants, but they usually don’t know they are.

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?

This also “depends”. All of us have a responsibility to learn, study, and live our faith. Those whose “heart” is rebellious toward the Church teachings are on a dangerous path.

We are one body only as much as we at least include all those who profess Christ.

No, OS, this is just more of your fantasy about what unity and communion means. It is not about “inclusion” or exclusion, or holding hands, or the kiss of peace, or anything we do with each other. Communion occurs when a soul is in right relationship with God, and therefore, is in right relationship with the rest of the Body.

 Isn’t the attitude of inclusion what is strived for?

Is this found somewhere in the First Letter of One Sheep to the Faithful?

 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?

The Holy Spirit it He that finds the lost sheep. We may be fortunate to participate in that process. No Catholic has the power to “shove that sheep out of the flock” because it is no our flock. The flock belongs to the Lord, and no one can snatch His sheep our of His hand. You have erroneously made communion and unity related to how we treat one another.

You have also started insulting others on this thread by implying they are afraid or “running away” if they reject your erroneous presuppositions about the doctrines of the faith. This behavior is a passive aggressive form of shoving the sheep. Have you forgotten who is the Accuser of the Brethren?

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

 

[guanophore]

Communion is not between people?  Okay, that is a new one for me.  A side effect?

It would be more accurate to say that communion does not occur because of something any of us do between ourselves. Communion is created when we are in right relationship with God. The communion between members of the Body is a reflection of, and outgrowth of each person’s communion with God.

“One Body”

790 Believers who respond to God’s word and become members of Christ’s Body, become intimately united with him: "In that body the life of Christ is communicated to those who believe, and who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ in his Passion and glorification."220 This is especially true of Baptism, which unites us to Christ’s death and Resurrection, and the Eucharist, by which "really sharing in the body of the Lord, . . . we are taken up into communion with him and with one another."221

Good. Glad you found this.

791 The body’s unity does not do away with the diversity of its members: "In the building up of Christ’s Body there is engaged a diversity of members and functions. There is only one Spirit who, according to his own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives his different gifts for the welfare of the Church."222 The unity of the Mystical Body produces and stimulates charity among the faithful: "From this it follows that if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with him, and if one member is honored, all the members together rejoice."223 Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."224

Do you get it, guanophore? We are all one. That means communion between me and you, that means inclusion.

That is not what it says, OS. It says that, when unity exists, communion is present, and we are members one of another. This cannot be applied to those who are not in right relationship with Christ. When communion is broken with Him, it is broken from the other members as well.

 Well, I keep asking for doctrinal evidence that communion is based on adherence to teachings rather than Eucharist, but you have yet to provide such "evidence".

If you cannot see this in the above passage, then I cannot help you.There is no dichotomy between Eucharist and adherance to the Teachings. There is no “rather than”. Those who are in sacramental communion through the Eucharist receive with “Amen”, which means they embrace all that the Church teaches and believes.

 Back up your words, please.  A person who participates in Eucharist is part of the body.

No, One Sheep, this is not true. There are non-believers all the time, and those who are not in an appropriate disposed state that present themselves for communion every week. On any given Sunday, the vast majority of those present may well be committing a sacriligious act. People standing up and asserting that they believe and obey the Teachings does not make it so.

I am not in a position to determine that, only God can. I am saying that, when we present ourselves for Eucharist and say" Amen" we are publicly confessing that we believe and follow the Teachings of the Church. I am also saying that many people present themselves that are lying with their words and body.

It starts with desire to be one with people; do you desire to be one with the Church, with many of its seemingly lukewarm members?

No, OS, it does not. It starts with a desire to be one with Christ. It starts with a desire to show our love for Him by keeping His commandments. After that, as shown in the above section of the CCC, the Holy Spirit creates unity among the members.

Why would I want to be one with “lukewarm members”?

15*“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! 16So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth." Rev. 3:15

:bigyikes:

  "Jesus tells us in today's Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. The we receive the truth when we meet [it]."

Pope Francis

Amen!

[/QUOTE]

 

[guanophore]

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.

No one is born into Catholicism. You were probably baptized as an infant. You have done what we are all expected to do when this happens, which is to research and learn, then decide for ourselves.

Are you OK with that?
Or doesn’t that sit right with you?

It is sad for me, of course, when one chooses to be separated from his Creator, and prefers to live not only this life, but eternal life in separation from him, but I am not sure that you can qualify as either a heretic or an apostate. In order to be an apostate, one must have first embraced the faith.

But either way it is not for me to feel “OK” with your choice, which is between you and your creator.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Here is my theory about why so many people hate and fear atheism/atheists:

1: The essence of what it means to be a Catholic is ambiguous and confusing.
There doesn’t seem to be any consensus on what it means to be a true Catholic. This website should be proof enough, but evidence abounds! Confusion reigns. Because of this, those who consider themselves Catholic and attempt to build their identities upon that idea are building on an ambiguous and shifting core. They cannot find a solid, rich, and nutrient-filled soil for them to root their egos.

2: Without a strong and clear identity, a negative definition emerges.
Because Catholics don’t know who they are, and consequently are unable to love themselves, they must turn outward to define what they are not. They hate the other, in order to give the ego something firm to grasp. Catholics are against such and such, they oppose so and so. Because they can’t agree, or even understand what they love they turn to hatred and fear in order to define themselves.

Hi PC, thanks for the comments.

1. Is the essence of what it means to be Catholic ambiguous? Just because people find it confusing it doesn’t follow that the essential properties of being Catholic are not clear. They might be less clear for people who have not been well educated in the faith, but then, so are all sorts of mathematical formulae to those who are not well versed in the discipline. However, it is also important to discuss the element of will here, that is, people may willfully vague-up what it means to be Catholic to justify their own position. And, lastly, while there may be essential characteristics of being Catholic, there are also many non-essential ones. What are some of these essential characteristics? I’d suggest:

• consenting to the articles of the creed
• consenting to the dogmas of the faith
• giving deference to the authority of the Church and bishops

1. Not having a clear identity as x I don’t think that it follows that I don’t love myself or that I hate others. For example, I am a child of migrants to Australia. I have a mixed national identity that is, in the society in which I live, very unclear: where do I stand in relation to what it means to be Anglo-Australian? However, I don’t think I have any difficulties with loving myself (I probably do - too much!) and I certainly don’t hate Anglo-Australians or other nationalities as a result.

I just don’t think it’s a plausible explanation. Plus, if it is, does it seek to invalidate arguments against atheism based on this? If so, it is akin to the genetic fallacy. Furthermore, wouldn’t it, as a criticism, apply to any religion, or atheism, or any nationality, etc. etc.?

 

[OneSheep]

I think David, along with myself and perhaps other knowledgeable well catechized Catholics here on CAF reject your definition of communion.

Giving the sign of peace does not put people in Communion. Anyone can come to Mass in an excommunicated state and participate in the sign of peace. Being made in the image and likeness of God does not make a person in communion either.

We can be welcoming and befriending to all, but that does not put us in communion with them. REcognizing that we are not in communion with those who are not in right relationship with Christ is not “turning them down”.

You are wrong, people do intend to lead others astray. People love to make up their own definitions and press others into accepting them.

David is right to hold tight to the Church by his hand, and even your recommendation here that he follow his “conscience” is only good to the extent that he does hold fast to what we have received.

Okay, you’re right. Sometimes people do lead others astray for their own purposes. However, my reaching out to shake a hand does not qualify.

We are in communion with who we love, guanophore, and we are called to love everyone.

Do you not find yourself in communion with people you love? I am not talking about the feeling, nor am I ruling it out. I am talking about commitment to love. You must have people you are committed to love. Are you in communion with all of them, or only those who share your views of Catholicism?

 

[jmcrae]

Several cardinals, bishops, priests, and theologians believe that there is a pathway to communion for divorced and remarried couples. Others say this is impossible. Who are the real Catholics? How do we know?

All of them are real Catholics.

Having questions about what the Church teaches, and wondering whether there is a way for those who are married to two people at the same time (though only living with one of them at the moment) to partake of the Sacraments without committing sacrilege, does not make you “not Catholic.” Nor is the person who can’t see any way for this to happen “not Catholic.”

There is disagreement here. But, you can all agree that you’re not protestants or atheists right? In hatred, in ostracism, there is unity.

*By hatred I don’t mean childish emotional outbursts, but the calm and rational hatred of the “wrong” other. This hatred excludes, belittles, patronizes, scorns, and separates. It is what allows me to feel “superior” to another fellow human being. It erases their unique identity, and makes me feel special.

The sense of urgent anxiety you experience when discussing your ideas with Catholics isn’t arising from hatred, but rather, from that feeling you get when someone (even if they are a total stranger) wanders into the path of an oncoming train without realizing it - they want to save you from the oncoming train, and you keep stepping closer to it while denying that it exists, and asking questions about how reliable a form of transportation it is, anyway, if there are starving children in the world.

 

[OneSheep]

It would be more accurate to say that communion does not occur because of something any of us do between ourselves. Communion is created when we are in right relationship with God. The communion between members of the Body is a reflection of, and outgrowth of each person’s communion with God.

“One Body”

790 Believers who respond to God’s word and become members of Christ’s Body, become intimately united with him: "In that body the life of Christ is communicated to those who believe, and who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ in his Passion and glorification."220 This is especially true of Baptism, which unites us to Christ’s death and Resurrection, and the Eucharist, by which "really sharing in the body of the Lord, . . . we are taken up into communion with him and with one another."221

Hi Guanophore!

Yes, it is becoming quite obvious that you place much less emphasis on “something any of us do between ourselves”. This does not make your Catholicism more acceptable, just different.

“Right relationship with God” includes right relationship with every human being on Earth, for God is in all of us. What does that “right relationship” with people look like, guanophore? Is there a call to understand people, to give them the benefit of the doubt? The priest that taught me so much said that we are called to always give people the benefit of the doubt. If we cannot find such “benefit”, that is only an indication of lack of imagination!

That is not what it says, OS. It says that, when unity exists, communion is present, and we are members one of another. This cannot be applied to those who are not in right relationship with Christ. When communion is broken with Him, it is broken from the other members as well.

 

[OneSheep]

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?

Oh, Pumpkin, bless your soul!

Umm… with all due respect, you’re not “very knowledgeable about Catholicism”.

You have knowledge, of a certain sort; but it’s not knowledge of Catholicism. It’s probably knowledge of certain life experiences that have colored your opinion of the Catholic Church (but there’s no way that we can tell exactly what those might be, on this forum). All we know for sure is that you know something, about something akin to Catholicism, but certainly not what the Catholic Church teaches.

So, as a result, you’ve rejected something, but what you’ve rejected isn’t ‘the Catholic Church’. It’s a rejection of something you’ve constructed in your mind. Therefore, you’re not damned to hell; you’re just struggling with a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church is. The ‘confusion’ you’ve been railing against isn’t a confusion ‘of Catholicism’, it’s ‘of what you think Catholicism is’. Big difference, there.

May God bless you with His wisdom.

Blessings,
G.

I love the charity of your answer, Gorgias!

PC’s “misunderstandings” are actually quite understandable, given the link he posted, am I right? O_milly’s post was also appropriate, and like yours, communicated inclusion.

In contrast to the rather exclusionary views of the writings in the link he posted, your post communicates a deeper understanding; you look upon the rejecting with eyes of love, eyes that see the goodness of people. You have put aside blame and indifference.

God Bless you, Gorgias!

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Guanophore, good morning!

You are making the very dangerous and erroneous presumption that communion with you is the same as being in communion with the Church. In doing so, you have set yourself against that the Church teaches about our communion with each other.

There is a Sister I know who says something very wonderful. She points her hand like a pistol, and then she says, “Look what happens when I point my hand like this! When I point like this, there are three fingers pointing back at me!”

We all do this, guanophore, we condemn in others what we are often doing in the moment! You have presumed. I never said that communion with Me is the same as communion with the Church. What I am saying is that to the degree that I refuse to be in communion with any individual Catholic, I am refusing communion with Christ Himself!

Shaking hands is not being in communion.

It is a sign of communion with others. It is a gesture of welcome to the Christ who is in all of us. Do you refuse my handshake, or do you grasp, guanophore? Am I so detestable to you?

No assumptions are necessary. Your posts have made it clear that your ideas are “off”.

Are they “off” or are you making more presumptions? Oh, and I just noticed post 471. Yes, our communications are getting to be a bit lengthy, but your post leaves most of my writings in your name. The basis of communion is Eucharist, guanophore. When we share in the body we do so as a body, we are one in the Spirit.

Communion is based in Love. God is Love. I love you, that is my calling, and my commitment.

Think of this, guanophore: what part of the Creed are you addressing with your own definition of communion? (It is your own definition, because you have yet to come forth with an official teaching that proves your point,) Yet, your ideas are not “off”. Your views and my own are both legitimate.

Have you given some thought to our Holy Father’s call to give up indifference for lent? I have. Just a suggestion: my guess is that you have no hesitation toward reaching out and serving the homeless, the sick, the incarcerated. That is true, correct? If they were to ask for your blessing or for help, you would not hesitate (within limits, of course). Can you reach out and grasp the hands of those who see the faith differently than you do? Can you welcome them, and have the humility to realize that none of us has the whole truth? Even if their ideas seem “off” or they are “lukewarm”, can you serve them and embrace them? Maybe you think you already do this. Yes, I am challenging you, but feel free to reject the challenge!

God Bless your day.

 

[guanophore]

Okay, you're right.  Sometimes people do lead others astray for their own purposes.  However, my reaching out to shake a hand does not qualify.

I agree. The leading astray is found in pushing the idea that this is equivalent to communion/Eucharist.

We are in communion with who we love, guanophore, and we are called to love everyone.

I have acknowledged, and will continue to do so, that you have the God given gift of freedom of will. This divine gift enables you to create any religion or precept your heart desires. This one is probably found in the First Epistle of One Sheep to the Faithful?

Do you not find yourself in communion with people you love? I am not talking about the feeling, nor am I ruling it out. I am talking about commitment to love. You must have people you are committed to love. Are you in communion with all of them, or only those who share your views of Catholicism?

Not by any manner of means. The vast majority of people I love, those in my family, my neighbors, my clients and my co-workers are quite removed from communion with Christ. It is people’s relationship with Him that creates communion among the members of His Body, not our treatment of each other. We are called to love our enemies, and that includes the enemies of Christ. Loving others does not create communion with them.

Hi Guanophore!

Yes, it is becoming quite obvious that you place much less emphasis on “something any of us do between ourselves”. This does not make your Catholicism more acceptable, just different.

Emphasis of mine is irrelevant, since what creates communion occurs by the work of the Holy Spirit. Catholicism does not belong to me, but to Christ. It is His Church, and He gets to decide what is “acceptable”, not me.

“Right relationship with God” includes right relationship with every human being on Earth, for God is in all of us. What does that “right relationship” with people look like, guanophore?

One of the greatest dangers of pandering heterodoxy is that there are kernals of Truth embedded in it, such as this one.

Scripture is clear about what that relationship looks like (from my side).

4Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 5it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. I Cor.13

A good self examin has been provided to me:

4*Guanophore is patient and kind; Guanophore is not jealous or boastful; 5Guanophore is not arrogant or rude.Guanophore does not insist on its own way;Guanophore is not irritable or resentful; 6Guanophore does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7Guanophore bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

“Right relationship with Christ”, my friend, is intricately tied with right relationship with each other.

Exactly. This is why communion does not exist between us when each of us are not in right relationship with God.

Our relationships with each other are not the basis of communion.

 Is your tendency to exclude others who are "lukewarm" or have some other characteristic you do not like?  Inclusion and exclusion are very, very, basic sentiments.  For example, do you see that I am choosing to include you?  Yet, I am not sensing such inclusion coming from your direction.

Inclusion or exclusion is beyond the purview of either of us. it is His Body, and He determines who is a member of it, and who is not. He determines who is in right relationship with Him, or not. It might be more appropriate for you to pose this question to Christ, since He is the one saying he will spit the lukewarm out of His mouth. This is not about “unlikable characteristics” but about the state of the soul and spirit of a person. “Sentiment” is not a factor.

As far as being included in the First Church of One Sheep Self Defined, I have no desire to be included.

Did you read CCC 791? It talks about divisions. What do Christian groups divide over? Doctrine. Why did you not address the points I made about individuals and doctrine? You seem to think doctrine is very important, but do you see the Spirit of CCC 791? Can you live it?

I see no separation or contradiction between Christ and His Teachings. To"put on Christ" means to be clothed with Him, to bear His identity to the world. Right relationship with Him means embracing His commandments. We can all “live it” by His grace.

Are you asserting that an individual inclined to be part of the body is not met by God with open arms?

That depends upon one’s inclination. Those who want to say “Lord, Lord” but do not do what He says have a bent inclination.

Or, are you thinking that God would turn His head at their “sacrireligiousness”?

Are you suggesting that sacrilege is fine with God?