The Confusion of Catholicism

[Aloysium]

. . . there are things that simply must be believed, or at least assented to, as a minimum criteria for being in the good graces of the church. . .

Ya think? It’s called the truth, perhaps a bad word in some philosophical circles.

 

[Abu]

OneSheep #592
Have you read Awareness by Anthony de Mello? He was a priest and psychotherapist. Here is one of my favorite quotes:
Anytime you have a negative feeling toward anyone, you’re living in an illusion… You’re not seeing reality… But what do we generally do when we have a negative feeling? “He is to blame, she is to blame. She’s got to change”. No! The world’s all right. The one who has to change is YOU.

People condemning and demonizing are living in an illusion.

We need to know the many problems with Anthony de Mello such as the false “illusions’ he manufactures. “The world’s all right”? Really – change to suit “the world”?

See: NOTIFICATION CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF FR. ANTHONY DE MELLO, SJ
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFDEMEL.HTM

Typical are:
‘Religions, including Christianity, are one of the major obstacles to the discovery of truth. This truth, however, is never defined by the author in its precise contents. For him, to think that the God of one’s own religion is the only one is simply fanaticism. “God” is considered as a cosmic reality, vague and omnipresent; the personal nature of God is ignored and in practice denied.’

" ‘The lovely thing about Jesus was that he was so at home with sinners, because he understood that he wasn’t one bit better than they were’…The only difference between Jesus and those others was that he was awake and they weren’t" (Awareness, 30-31);

“With respect to this life, since evil is simply ignorance, there are no objective rules of morality. Good and evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality.”

 

[guanophore]

Yes, communion is based on Eucharist!

Now, let’s turn it around a little.

This seems to be a particular skill of yours.

If someone comes to you and says, "no, communion is not based on Eucharist, it is based on people completely in agreement with all the teachings of the Church", would you think of the person having some kind of negative "heterodoxy".  How would you feel about his unsupported approach?  Would you shake his hand as a fellow Catholic?  You would, right?

We have a different understanding of the nature of Eucharist.

For Catholics, participation in Eucharist is an affirmation that we receive and assent to all that Jesus did and taught. This is what it means to be “in Christ”. There is no separation between being in unity with the person of Christ, and following His commandments. He taught that, if we love Him, we will keep his commandments.

Shaking hands with other persons who claim they are Catholic does not create communion either.

Fr. Anthony de Mello said, "God loves you at least as much as the person who loves you most."

Jesus said: 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.’

This passage is addressed to believers, not unbelievers. Jesus also said that humans, being evil, could still give good gifts to their children (and do good works in the world).
Doing good works does not earn one a place in heaven.

So, lets say a person poor, imprisoned, sick, or hungry is a "lukewarm Catholic".  Now, are we called to "spit out" this person, or are we to serve him, to care for him?  Do you see that such literal interpretations that may appear contradictory to unconditional love must be examined carefully?  Does such "spitting out" reflect God's understanding, forgiveness, and mercy?

It is quite possible to love and serve those who are unbelievers or who have lost their Catholicity. It does not mean we are in communion with one another. Communion is not based on warm fuzzies, but in our relationship with Christ. The Holy Spirit creates communion between us as we are in right relationship with Him.

Are you frustrated, disappointed, with “lukewarm Catholics”, guanophore? It’s okay to be frustrated. All of us have had times of such “lukewarmness”, have we not, where we fall short of having great zeal for Christ and His message?

I don’t really spend much mental/emotional energy on the attitudes in the hearts of others. My responsibility is to keep myself from being lukewarm. Lukewarmness is much more broad and severe than “falling short” once in a while. It is a lifestyle that does not have a great deal of zeal for Christ and His message.

Here is a suggestion:… He wants us to focus the attention of our conscience onto our worldly comfort. You can catalog that under “OneSheep’s commentary on Revelations 3:15-17” I know, you would not be first in line to buy the commentary.

I will catalog your belief that God wnts us to focus our conscience on our worldly comfort.
You are right, I will not be looking to buy your commentary.

So, are you saying that people who do not agree with all the Church's teachings, even though they receive Eucharist and are inclined toward the Church are excommunicating themselves?

Eucharist is not for those who are “inclined toward the Church”, but for those who have already embraced her. Persons who are in open dissention against the teachings of the church commit sacrelege by attempting to participate in Eucharist.

Some Catholics have already excommuniated them selves under latae sententiae. Certain actions contain excommunication, so a person excommunicates themselves when they engage in the act. The Code of Canon Law, which binds Catholics of the Latin Church, inflicts latae sententiae censures for certain actions, so it would depend upon the type of dissention and the manner in which it occurred.

 Communion as upheld by individual Catholics, a real experienced community, is a phenomenon that is unquestionably influenced by our feelings toward one another.

“Communion as upheld by individual Catholics”??!!!

It sounds like a little gathering you have in your front room?

Undoubtedly most human activiies that occur in groups will be influenced by our feelings for one another. So, are you saying that you share a “communion” with other individual Catholics that all get together and experience warm fuzzy feelings with one another?

 

[guanophore]

This is intuitive, guanophore.  If I refuse to shake your hand, am I communicating communion?

It may be intuitive, OS, ,but it is also irrelevant. No matter how many hands I shake, ,such an activity does not create communion. Communion, or Catholic Eucharist (it seems taht you have a different thing going for yourself and your individual catholic group) is rooted in our relationship with Christ, which is reflected in our embracing what He taught.

Make this real, guanophore.  Like I said before, you would certainly shake the hand of a homeless person.

Depends on the circumstances. I know where those hands have been!

What if that homeless person was “heterodox”? Would shaking his hand mean that you believe the same way he does? Of course not.

It is odd that you just proved my point.

Would shaking his hand communicate something about “right relationship with God”? Absolutely.

No, One Sheep. People shake hands all day with all kinds of people. It is a human custom, one that is particularly Western. It has nothing to do with being in communion.

This seems to be what you are suggesting.  I have only asked you if you would shake my hand as a fellow Catholic even though I do not see the teachings the same way you do.  So far, you have not accepted such a simple handshake.  It's a bit puzzling.

Shaking your hand is not contingent upon you having orthodox faith. Shaking your hand also does not imply that we have “communion”. You are not a “fellow Catholic” if you reject the teachings of the faith. If you have Catholicity, it got lost.

So I, a fellow Catholic, put out my hand to shake yours. Do you grasp it, or do you fear that in so doing you accept my atrocious views? What does love look like? Can you take people from where they are?

Sure, but I don’t pretend that I am in communion with them, or fool myself into thinking they are in communion with Christ. This is not something that occurs through shaking hands.

 .  Yes, strictly defined, "communion" is not "inclusive" of people who do not receive Eucharist or do so without sincerity.  However, we are called to create the "Kingdom".  What does that Kingdom look like?  It looks like people loving others unconditionally, it looks like people welcoming one another, not judgmentally scrutinizing their orthodoxy.  It looks like Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners, it looks like Jesus speaking to the outcast Samaritan woman.  Is this not inclusive?

Evangelism reaches out to those who outside the City of God. Evangelism does not created communion. Communion occurs when people to whom we reach respond, and enter into the faith. The Kingdom is defined as those who are under the lordship of the King. Yes, it looks like loving people unconditionally, including those who are outside the household fo faith. Eating with unbelievers does not create communion. Being “inclusive” does not create communion.

Like I said, inclusion is a very, very basic sentiment.  Do we draw people in, or do we push them away?  Am I pushing you away?  If so, I am sorry.  You are part of the body.

Communion is not rooted in any basic human sentiments.

Evangelism is not based in any “very basic human sentiment” either. Although I would agree that it requires drawing people in rather than pushing them away.

Yes, your attitude is very offputting and offensive to me. I do not appreciate the watering down of the faith into “basic human sentiments”. It smacks of humanism.

Rejection of Christ and His teachings disconnects people from the Body.

There is more, I overran the word limit again!

Split the post,then copy the rest into a new post.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Doing good works does not earn one a place in heaven.

It would seem heaven is the abode not of those who strive to do good and avoid evil, but of sycophants!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Yes, your attitude is very offputting and offensive to me. I do not appreciate the watering down of the faith into “basic human sentiments”. It smacks of humanism.

Oh no, one cannot be mistaken for someone who loves humanity and desires all humans to have the opportunity to flourish. Can’t have one’s religious beliefs getting mixed up in all that nonsense!

 

[jmcrae]

Oh no, one cannot be mistaken for someone who loves humanity and desires all humans to have the opportunity to flourish. Can’t have one’s religious beliefs getting mixed up in all that nonsense!

First you’re offended that it’s those who love God who get to go to heaven, and now you’re upset that maybe there’s more that just ooey gooey sentimentality required.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

First you’re offended that it’s those who love God who get to go to heaven, and now you’re upset that maybe there’s more that just ooey gooey sentimentality required.

I’m neither offended nor upset, just amused. Love is distinct from obsequiousness. We all know that!

 

[guanophore]

It would seem heaven is the abode not of those who strive to do good and avoid evil, but of sycophants!

I am not familiar with this term, but the Scriptures say that 'nothing unclean can enter heaven", therefore, a person who does not strive to do good and avoid evil will not be predisposed to enternity with God.

Oh no, one cannot be mistaken for someone who loves humanity and desires all humans to have the opportunity to flourish. Can’t have one’s religious beliefs getting mixed up in all that nonsense!

Believe me, I love humanism. It has changed the world for the better in many ways. But humanism, like trying to work one’s way into heaven aby striving to do good and avoiding evil, will not give us eternal life with God. We are saved only by grace, through faith, lest any man should boast.

Christianity does call us to love all humanity, and desire that all humans have the opportunity to flourish. We just acknowledge that this will not happen apart from the grace of God.

My complaint is about human sentiment being a standard. My warm fuzzy feelings toward others does not equate to them being in communion with Christ.

I’m neither offended nor upset, just amused. Love is distinct from obsequiousness. We all know that!

I am not sure this is true. A number of One Sheep’s posts have indicated that handshaking, inclusion, welcoming, and appreciating diversity will create unity with Christ.

 

[paziego]

Ya think? It’s called the truth, perhaps a bad word in some philosophical circles.

Some philosophical circles?
While individual philosophers may not agree with each other we all respect the honesty of our mutual search for truth, and treat each other with the due “professional courtesy”. There are no divisions of the kind to suggest. This is quite unlike the liberal-conservative dualism and enimity within the Catholic Church.

 

[davidv]

Some philosophical circles?
While individual philosophers may not agree with each other we all respect the honesty of our mutual search for truth, and treat each other with the due “professional courtesy”. There are no divisions of the kind to suggest.

Really? Evidence of opposite is often present in this very forum.

This is quite unlike the liberal-conservative dualism and enimity within the Catholic Church.

This is clearly an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m neither offended nor upset, just amused. Love is distinct from obsequiousness. We all know that!

There is nothing to suggest that obsequiesness will get anyone into Heaven. I’m not sure where you’re getting that from.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . quite unlike the liberal-conservative dualism and enimity within the Catholic Church.

We are all called to be in right relation with God. The Church established by Jesus Christ offers us the means to do so. As part of its role, it assists us, interpreting His revealed Truth. Through the grace of the Holy Spirit, it’s teachings give light to the mysteries of existence.

I’m not sure what you are talking about liberal-conservative dualism. The church is a social institution in mundane terms, but in reality, constitutes the body of Christ as we journey together to the Truth. Any enmity is against sin which leads to death and eternal perditon.

What is described in the quote above reflects a focus on things of this world. When one’s gaze is set on God, everything is transformed. We should pray for each other’s growth in the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

There is nothing to suggest that obsequiesness will get anyone into Heaven. I’m not sure where you’re getting that from.

What do we call people who do good deeds? Good people. If good people aren’t going to heaven, who is left? Sycophants.

 

[jmcrae]

What do we call people who do good deeds? Good people. If good people aren’t going to heaven, who is left? Sycophants.

Or, forgiven sinners, maybe.

Nobody can be good enough to gain Heaven all by themselves. There are always more good deeds you can do, and more effective ways you can do them. Even Mother Teresa had her critics, so if good deeds are the criteria, what hope do any of us have, if even Mother Teresa could be criticized?

No - our hope is in God’s mercy.

 

[guanophore]

What do we call people who do good deeds? Good people. If good people aren’t going to heaven, who is left? Sycophants.

There are people in heaven who have done good deeds. There are people in hell who have done good deeds.

No one can earn their way into heaven doing good deeds.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Or, forgiven sinners, maybe.

Nobody can be good enough to gain Heaven all by themselves. There are always more good deeds you can do, and more effective ways you can do them. Even Mother Teresa had her critics, so if good deeds are the criteria, what hope do any of us have, if even Mother Teresa could be criticized?

No - our hope is in God’s mercy.

It is unreasonable to expect limited human beings to be perfect. We are required to do our best, but we cannot be required to do the impossible. Fortunately, human beings are not the judges.

Yes, our hope is in God.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

There are people in heaven who have done good deeds. There are people in hell who have done good deeds.

No one can earn their way into heaven doing good deeds.

Indeed, to you, obsequiousness is the sine qua non of salvation it would seem.

One deserves hell merely by being born, and no amount of manifest goodness can repair the situation right? The only solution is to bow before men who have set themselves up as God’s mouthpieces in hopes of currying favor. The “economy of salvation” is celestial cronyism, based on what I understand you to be saying.

 

[Aloysium]

Indeed, to you, obsequiousness is the sine qua non of salvation it would seem.

One deserves hell merely by being born, and no amount of manifest goodness can repair the situation right? The only solution is to bow before men who have set themselves up as God’s mouthpieces in hopes of currying favor. The “economy of salvation” is celestial cronyism, based on what I understand you to be saying.

This is nothing remotely close to what I understood that the poster was trying to say.

 

[o_mlly]

…

One neither deserves hell nor merits heaven merely by being born, and -]no amount of /-]cooperation with grace which is manifest goodness -]can/-] -]repair the/-] redeems one’s situation.-] right?/-] -]The only solution is to bow before men who have set themselves up as God’s mouthpieces in hopes of currying favor. The “economy of salvation” is celestial cronyism, based on what I understand you to be saying/-].