The Early Church: If They Weren't Catholic, What Were They?

[guanophore]

This comment is puzzling to me. If the majority of modern American Catholics reject the teachings of the Church, as you say, that is not an encouraging sign for one who is considering Catholicism. Why would I want to be in a Church whose members don’t even agree with its teachings?

Anna

I don’t blame you, and to be honest, along with my ignorance this was one of the major factors in abandoning my faith. I thought that an authentic faith would produce fruit among it’s adherance, and mistakely took the faith to be false, rather than the adherants.

In truth, the majority of American Catholics have excommunicated themselves from the faith, and are living in mortal sin, because they have rejected the teachings of the church.

But blaming the Church for the failure of those who choose to live in sin is like blaming the Teachings of Christ because Judas betrayed Him. Will you judge the quality of His instruction and life by the one who did not embrace it?

Look rather to those who have embraced her teachings to decide if authentic fruit exists.

One should not become Catholic, lest they become pursuaded that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ, in spite of those who sully her reputation.

 

[guanophore]

guanophore,

I can’t tell you that I know exactly what hell is, other than to say that it is separation from God. I can tell you that I don’t believe it is a literal fiery torment.

Well, your arguement is with Jesus, not with me.

I am curious, though, if you are translating “literal” as “physical”. If so, then this is a presumptive error.

I think we have to consider more than a few N.T. passages in understanding hell. The O.T. certainly does not speak of a fiery torment. Interpretation of the N.T. passages is often filtered through the lens of Greek mythology. The Greek mythological god Hades, considered ruler of the underworld, has had a tremendous influence on views of hell. Even the word Lucifer became a name for Satan outside the Biblical text.

I agree with this, but we also must consider that Jesus and the Apostles provided all the clarity we need.

The fact that there are some elements of Truth outside of the Jewish and Christian faiths does not nullify those eternal truths that have been revealed to God’s chosen people. There were many stories about death and resurrction, too, before Jesus. It does not make what He did of less value.

Consider the words of Benedict XVI quoted in the the following two articles. Notice in the first article, “Vatican Officials” clarified the Pope’s words, saying, "Hell is a ‘state of eternal separation from God’, to be understood “symbolically rather than physically.” Emphasis is mine throughout.

Yes, I take issue with the dichotomy here. Literal can apply to non-tangible truths as well as tangilble. For examples, there are literal angels, ministering spirits created by God. They are spiritial in nature, and have no corporial body, but the fact that they are not physically manifested within our space time continuum does not make them less literal (real).

As I said before, Pope John Paul II did not believe in a literal fiery torment. I’ll post his words again.

I encourage all to be read in full context. Links are provided for all.
**
continued next post**

Anna

I guess we read it differently. His observation about the number of the damned does not equate to a non-belief in a literal hell. On the contrary, it seems to me that his other comments make his belief clear.

“Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said.”

Is this a misrepresentation of his remarks?

Saying something is symbolic does not mean it is not literal. The symbol embodies that for which it stands. Or, are you going to follow this line of reasoning by claiming that Jesus only gave “symbolic” flesh and blood on the cross?

I don’t believe the fires of hell are literal.
Anna

Perhaps by this you mean that you don’t believe they are contained in our present space time continuum? If that is the case, then we are in agreement. But, if you mean that realities that exist in the spiritual realm and not the physical are not “real” then, as I have said, your arguement is with Christ, not with me. A non-physical state is just as “literal” (real) as a corporeal one, and in some cases, more so.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You are quite right on this one. Nobody should join or not join a Church or any religious institution just because of the character of the adherents. That’s a sort of Donatist membership mentality. And I agree that Catholic catechesis in the last thirty years has been beyond abysmal. I didn’t learn jack q. squat in CCD as a kid. I was miserable. I didn’t even know the Eucharist was the Body of Christ until I was around 16 and what a revelation that was!

I do think it’s fair to blame the Church, however. I think failure to teach is a culpability. My wife is from the Philippines. It was once a STAUNCHLY Catholic nation. Now it is more nominally Catholic than anything. Homosexuality runs RAMPANT there. You can’t believe how prevalent the gay lifestyle is there! Per capita it seems worse there to me than here, seriously. The people there brag that there is “no divorce” because they’re a “Catholic nation.” That is true. What the people do, by and large, is just break up after married and shack up with somebody new because they can’t afford the annulment. You cannot believe how many people I talk to and know in the Phils. are shacking up with new partners, split up. The Church knows this. The Church knows that there is a crisis of out of wedlock births there, cohabitation, gays, etc. Yet you don’t hear a word of preaching against it ever.

And my wife told me that in all her years growing up in the Philippines that NEVER did she ever even hear anything remotely related to NFP. And every filipino I speak to has never heard of it at all!

So you can blame all the people, which you should, but you must also blame the priests and bishops and cardinals for a failure to preach, teach, condemn, and rail against these modern sins. It boggles my mind how we lay folks are called to examine our consciences and acknowledge “what we have left undone” at confession but the actual Church is not held to what is “left undone,” only what they have taught ex cathedra and all the rest is inconsequential because it’s not infallible?

I don’t blame you, and to be honest, along with my ignorance this was one of the major factors in abandoning my faith. I thought that an authentic faith would produce fruit among it’s adherance, and mistakely took the faith to be false, rather than the adherants.

In truth, the majority of American Catholics have excommunicated themselves from the faith, and are living in mortal sin, because they have rejected the teachings of the church.

But blaming the Church for the failure of those who choose to live in sin is like blaming the Teachings of Christ because Judas betrayed Him. Will you judge the quality of His instruction and life by the one who did not embrace it?

Look rather to those who have embraced her teachings to decide if authentic fruit exists.

One should not become Catholic, lest they become pursuaded that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ, in spite of those who sully her reputation.

 

[SSTeacher]

You are quite right on this one. Nobody should join or not join a Church or any religious institution just because of the character of the adherents. That’s a sort of Donatist membership mentality. And I agree that Catholic catechesis in the last thirty years has been beyond abysmal. I didn’t learn jack q. squat in CCD as a kid. I was miserable. I didn’t even know the Eucharist was the Body of Christ until I was around 16 and what a revelation that was!

I do think it’s fair to blame the Church, however. I think failure to teach is a culpability. My wife is from the Philippines. It was once a STAUNCHLY Catholic nation. Now it is more nominally Catholic than anything. Homosexuality runs RAMPANT there. You can’t believe how prevalent the gay lifestyle is there! Per capita it seems worse there to me than here, seriously. The people there brag that there is “no divorce” because they’re a “Catholic nation.” That is true. What the people do, by and large, is just break up after married and shack up with somebody new because they can’t afford the annulment. You cannot believe how many people I talk to and know in the Phils. are shacking up with new partners, split up. The Church knows this. The Church knows that there is a crisis of out of wedlock births there, cohabitation, gays, etc. Yet you don’t hear a word of preaching against it ever.

And my wife told me that in all her years growing up in the Philippines that NEVER did she ever even hear anything remotely related to NFP. And every filipino I speak to has never heard of it at all!

So you can blame all the people, which you should, but you must also blame the priests and bishops and cardinals for a failure to preach, teach, condemn, and rail against these modern sins. It boggles my mind how we lay folks are called to examine our consciences and acknowledge “what we have left undone” at confession but the actual Church is not held to what is “left undone,” only what they have taught ex cathedra and all the rest is inconsequential because it’s not infallible?

What an interesting and informative post.

However, going back to the beginning, it seems to me that from an inquirer’s point of view, the character of the church members is an important consideration. I daresay many inquirers have in mind the “by their fruits you shall know them” idea. Not only that, there’s the thought advanced by Saint Paul that “bad company corrupts good character.”

Biblically,
Mick

 

[guanophore]

What an interesting and informative post.

However, going back to the beginning, it seems to me that from an inquirer’s point of view, the character of the church members is an important consideration. I daresay many inquirers have in mind the “by their fruits you shall know them” idea. Not only that, there’s the thought advanced by Saint Paul that “bad company corrupts good character.”

Biblically,
Mick

I agree. I concur with the the Pope that a smaller, more pure church is what is needed. If all those who have rejected Catholic faith are clearly shown to no longer be Catholic, then the numbers will shrink rapidly. Those that remain will be clearly seen to bear the fruits of faith. Jesus said the world would know Him by our love for one another, so how can we be witnesses to a dying worlkd when the character of those filling the pews does not reflect His love?

 

[guanophore]

You are quite right on this one. Nobody should join or not join a Church or any religious institution just because of the character of the adherents. That’s a sort of Donatist membership mentality.

The other side of this arguement also has value, in that, if no salt and light is seen, there is a problem.

And I agree that Catholic catechesis in the last thirty years has been beyond abysmal. I didn’t learn jack q. squat in CCD as a kid. I was miserable. I didn’t even know the Eucharist was the Body of Christ until I was around 16 and what a revelation that was!

I do think it’s fair to blame the Church, however.

I suppose that depends upon how you define Church. If you are talking about your catechists, then perhaps so.

My other question is, what benefit is there to placing blame? Where in Jesus’ teaching to you find the “fair” assignment of blame?

I think failure to teach is a culpability.

Yes, I agree. However, I have to admit that I was as much a part of the problem as the solution. I did not take it upon myself, even after becoming an adult, to study the faith, or become involved in catechesis to improve the situation.

 The people there brag that there is "no divorce" because they're a "Catholic nation."  That is true. What the people do, by and large, is just break up after married and shack up with somebody new because they can't afford the annulment.  You cannot believe how many people I talk to and know in the Phils. are shacking up with new partners, split up.  The Church knows this.  The Church knows that there is a crisis of out of wedlock births there, cohabitation, gays, etc. Yet you don't hear a word of preaching against it ever.

I agree, preaching the Truth is a very important aspect of preventing sins. I think many pastors do not do it out of fear. However, this is a personal failing, and not an indictment of the content of the faith of the Church. The Teachings are VERY CLEAR in all these areas.

And my wife told me that in all her years growing up in the Philippines that NEVER did she ever even hear anything remotely related to NFP. And every filipino I speak to has never heard of it at all!

This is a gross lack of education that also exists here in the US, in some areas more than others.

So you can blame all the people, which you should, but you must also blame the priests and bishops and cardinals for a failure to preach, teach, condemn, and rail against these modern sins.

Ok, and where does that get us? We have now managed to not look at the log that is in our own eye, and correctly identified the speck that is in theirs.

It boggles my mind how we lay folks are called to examine our consciences and acknowledge "what we have left undone" at confession but the actual Church is not held to what is "left undone," only what they have taught ex cathedra and all the rest is inconsequential because it's not infallible?

I think you are making some assumptions here. What makes you think that teh priests, bishops and cardinals are not equally called to examine their consciences? Do you not realize that they are held at a higher standard, and that their punishment will be even more severe?

I dont’ think any of the things you have mentioned here are “inconsequential”, and clearly, our shepherds are in need of much support, and some of them reformation. Human beings are always in need of reform. Finding fault and placing blame really does not help bring about reform. Only personal holiness, prayer, and fasting will do that.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6923590:

What an interesting and informative post.

However, going back to the beginning, it seems to me that from an inquirer’s point of view, the character of the church members is an important consideration. I daresay many inquirers have in mind the “by their fruits you shall know them” idea. Not only that, there’s the thought advanced by Saint Paul that “bad company corrupts good character.”

Biblically,
Mick

I agree. I concur with the Pope that a smaller, more pure church is what is needed.

Did the Pope actually say that, then?

If all those who have rejected Catholic faith are clearly shown to no longer be Catholic, then the numbers will shrink rapidly. Those that remain will be clearly seen to bear the fruits of faith. Jesus said the world would know Him by our love for one another, so how can we be witnesses to a dying world when the character of those filling the pews does not reflect His love?

Indeed. Why do you think so little attention is given church discipline inside Catholicism?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[Anna_Scott]

I don’t blame you, and to be honest, along with my ignorance this was one of the major factors in abandoning my faith. I thought that an authentic faith would produce fruit among it’s adherance, and mistakely took the faith to be false, rather than the adherants.

In truth, the majority of American Catholics have excommunicated themselves from the faith, and are living in mortal sin, because they have rejected the teachings of the church.

But blaming the Church for the failure of those who choose to live in sin is like blaming the Teachings of Christ because Judas betrayed Him. Will you judge the quality of His instruction and life by the one who did not embrace it?

Look rather to those who have embraced her teachings to decide if authentic fruit exists.

One should not become Catholic, lest they become pursuaded that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ, in spite of those who sully her reputation.

You are quite right on this one. Nobody should join or not join a Church or any religious institution just because of the character of the adherents. That’s a sort of Donatist membership mentality. And I agree that Catholic catechesis in the last thirty years has been beyond abysmal. I didn’t learn jack q. squat in CCD as a kid. I was miserable. I didn’t even know the Eucharist was the Body of Christ until I was around 16 and what a revelation that was!

I do think it’s fair to blame the Church, however. I think failure to teach is a culpability. My wife is from the Philippines. It was once a STAUNCHLY Catholic nation. Now it is more nominally Catholic than anything. Homosexuality runs RAMPANT there. You can’t believe how prevalent the gay lifestyle is there! Per capita it seems worse there to me than here, seriously. The people there brag that there is “no divorce” because they’re a “Catholic nation.” That is true. What the people do, by and large, is just break up after married and shack up with somebody new because they can’t afford the annulment. You cannot believe how many people I talk to and know in the Phils. are shacking up with new partners, split up. The Church knows this. The Church knows that there is a crisis of out of wedlock births there, cohabitation, gays, etc. Yet you don’t hear a word of preaching against it ever.

And my wife told me that in all her years growing up in the Philippines that NEVER did she ever even hear anything remotely related to NFP. And every filipino I speak to has never heard of it at all!

So you can blame all the people, which you should, but you must also blame the priests and bishops and cardinals for a failure to preach, teach, condemn, and rail against these modern sins. It boggles my mind how we lay folks are called to examine our consciences and acknowledge “what we have left undone” at confession but the actual Church is not held to what is “left undone,” only what they have taught ex cathedra and all the rest is inconsequential because it’s not infallible?

What an interesting and informative post.

However, going back to the beginning, it seems to me that from an inquirer’s point of view, the character of the church members is an important consideration. I daresay many inquirers have in mind the “by their fruits you shall know them” idea. Not only that, there’s the thought advanced by Saint Paul that “bad company corrupts good character.”

Biblically,
Mick

Actually, I think you are all right. This is a first. lol. I think we should celebrate! :extrahappy:

“Blaming the Church for the failure of those who choose to live in sin is like blaming the Teachings of Christ because Judas betrayed Him.” I shouldn’t “join or not join a Church, just because of the character of the adherents.” At the same time, the idea of “by their fruits you shall know them,” will be considered on one level or another.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Being a good soldier doesn’t count for a lot if the general is corrupt and distracted, inaffective, and doesn’t guide the mission. I agree with you that individual holiness and prayer and all the things you say are crucial. But just burying our heads in the sand, praying, and being personally holy is not enough when bishops are hiding pedophiles and covering them up as scandals brew into full-on Strombolian eruptions. And you and I can pray our rosaries and go to confession and be good folks but we also need bishops and cardinals to stand up and loudly encourage the priests and deacons to preach the WORD and preach it loud! When’s the last time you heard a bishop, priest, or deacon stand up in a parish church and blast people for divorcing? When’s the last time you heard a hard, telling-the truth-in love sermon where a priest or deacon ripped apart cohabitation or pre-marital sex?

At my parish church, the biggest in the area (about 7,000 registered families, more who aren’t registered) they have NEVER had ONE class in NFP. They haven’t mentioned it ever either! I went to RCIA and it was passed over quickly and swept under the rug. There are no couple-to-couple league folks coming around and the assistant priest even told me it’s not realistic to do NFP. He said that the bishops and priests aren’t naive. They know it’s unrealistic and goofy so we don’t bother much with it. Don’t worry about it!

We have countries like the forementioned Philippines example I gave where they used to be devout. Now they’re nominal Catholics morally who go to Mass every Sunday. It’s appauling to see the libertine sexuality they have there. It’s worse than here I think. And the bishops, cardinals, nobody says boo. So can I blame these “shepherds” for not having the guts to stand up and blast a whole in Satan? YOU BET!

You can say I’m blaming them and that guys like me aren’t looking at the beam in my own eye, etc. etc. First of all, you have no idea how much I analyze my beams! I’m littered with beams. I have enough splinters in my eyes to build a few train tracks. And I know it and I’m working on it. And I often fall and try to get up with Christ’s help. But that doesn’t mean I can’t walk and chew gum. I can analyze myself and pray and try to grow in Christ and yet at the same time not put up with mediocrity and even corruption and lazy apathy from the Church hierarchy either, right?

I think you’re right, the teachings ARE there. You’re right. But the Church is an organic, living, breathing body that keeps these teachings warm, taught, vibrant, alive, and relevent. It doesn’t do the Church any good to have perfect teachings and to throw these perfect jewels into a dusty old cabinet and lock the door on them. We must expect MORE from the Church at the global, national, diocesan and parish level and more from ourselves at the same time. I’m glad you have a passion for catechesis and reading your faith, knowing it, and desiring to share it. Hopefully your passion will be contagious in your parish. Blessings.

The other side of this arguement also has value, in that, if no salt and light is seen, there is a problem.

I suppose that depends upon how you define Church. If you are talking about your catechists, then perhaps so.

My other question is, what benefit is there to placing blame? Where in Jesus’ teaching to you find the “fair” assignment of blame?

Yes, I agree. However, I have to admit that I was as much a part of the problem as the solution. I did not take it upon myself, even after becoming an adult, to study the faith, or become involved in catechesis to improve the situation.

I agree, preaching the Truth is a very important aspect of preventing sins. I think many pastors do not do it out of fear. However, this is a personal failing, and not an indictment of the content of the faith of the Church. The Teachings are VERY CLEAR in all these areas.

This is a gross lack of education that also exists here in the US, in some areas more than others.

Ok, and where does that get us? We have now managed to not look at the log that is in our own eye, and correctly identified the speck that is in theirs.

I think you are making some assumptions here. What makes you think that teh priests, bishops and cardinals are not equally called to examine their consciences? Do you not realize that they are held at a higher standard, and that their punishment will be even more severe?

I dont’ think any of the things you have mentioned here are “inconsequential”, and clearly, our shepherds are in need of much support, and some of them reformation. Human beings are always in need of reform. Finding fault and placing blame really does not help bring about reform. Only personal holiness, prayer, and fasting will do that.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am curious, though, if you are translating “literal” as “physical”. If so, then this is a presumptive error.

Yes, I take issue with the dichotomy here. Literal can apply to non-tangible truths as well as tangilble. For examples, there are literal angels, ministering spirits created by God. They are spiritial in nature, and have no corporial body, but the fact that they are not physically manifested within our space time continuum does not make them less literal (real).

I’m not attempting to define the word “literal” in the framework of scholarly exegesis. I used the word “literal” to mean “literal physical burning hell.” That’s very clear in my posts both to you & to Ferde Rombola.

I guess we read it differently. His observation about the number of the damned does not equate to a non-belief in a literal hell. On the contrary, it seems to me that his other comments make his belief clear.

“Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said.”

Is this a misrepresentation of his remarks?

You’ve “cherry picked” the article.

Evidently it is a misrepresentation; because, as the article said, "Vatican officials said that the Pope — who is also the Bishop of Rome — had been speaking in “straightfoward” language ‘like a parish priest’. He had wanted to reinforce the new Catholic catechism, which holds that Hell is a ‘state of eternal separation from God’, to be understood ‘symbolically rather than physically’. . . . ."

From The Times
March 27, 2007
The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns
Richard Owen in Rome

Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and not just a religious symbol designed to galvanise the faithful, the Pope has said.

Addressing a parish gathering in a northern suburb of Rome, Benedict XVI said that in the modern world many people, including some believers, had forgotten that if they failed to “admit blame and promise to sin no more”, they risked “eternal damnation — the Inferno”.

Hell “really exists and is eternal, even if nobody talks about it much any more”, he said." . . . .

. . . .**Vatican officials **said that the Pope — who is also the Bishop of Rome — had been speaking in “straightfoward” language “like a parish priest”. He had wanted to reinforce the new Catholic catechism, which holds that Hell is a “state of eternal separation from God”, to be understood “symbolically rather than physically”. . . . .

Link: timesonline.co.uk/tol/new…cle1572646.ece

You also failed to comment on the other article, entitled, What the Pope really said about Hell."

Catholic News Agency (CNA)
What the Pope really said about Hell

Feb 11, 2008 / 01:46 pm (CNA).- At Pope Benedict XVI’s question and answer session with priests from his diocese last Thursday. . .

. . . . .Pope Benedict speculated that the condemned might not be numerous, describing how thoroughly they would have to have destroyed themselves:

“Perhaps there are not so many who have destroyed themselves so completely, who are irreparable forever, who no longer have any element upon which the love of God can rest, who no longer have the slightest capacity to love within themselves. This would be hell.” .

Saying something is symbolic does not mean it is not literal. The symbol embodies that for which it stands. Or, are you going to follow this line of reasoning by claiming that Jesus only gave “symbolic” flesh and blood on the cross?

Again, my issue is not the definition of “literal.” My issue is that I do not believe that hell is a literal burning. It’s not a physical place.

Perhaps by this you mean that you don’t believe they are contained in our present space time continuum? If that is the case, then we are in agreement. But, if you mean that realities that exist in the spiritual realm and not the physical are not “real” then, as I have said, your arguement is with Christ, not with me. A non-physical state is just as “literal” (real) as a corporeal one, and in some cases, more so.

This tangent isn’t helping the issue. I’m not debating the space time continuum. I agree that hell, whatever that may be, is not in “space and time” as we know it.

Posted by guanophore
. . . .If you have received the Apostolic faith, then you reject it, yes, you will burn in hell. That applies to everyone who becomes an apostate. . . .

Posted by Anna Scott
So, if anyone rejects the Immaculate Conception of Mary, they will burn in hell? I didn’t even think Catholics believed in a literal burning in hell.

Posted by guanophore
. . . .What part of the NT gave you the impression that hell was not “literal”? . . . .

To clarify. I don’t believe “the fires of hell” mentioned in the N.T refer to a literal-physical-burning hell. I’m not claiming that the fires of hell don’t exist. I think “fire” is used symbolically rather than physically, and do not refer to the fire that we know in our physical space and time.

Since we don’t seem to be on the same page regarding the actual topic of our conversation, just tell me why you challenged my statement regarding Catholics not believing in a literal burning hell. You did say that apostates would burn in hell. Did you mean what you said?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Being a good soldier doesn’t count for a lot if the general is corrupt and distracted, inaffective, and doesn’t guide the mission. I agree with you that individual holiness and prayer and all the things you say are crucial. But just burying our heads in the sand, praying, and being personally holy is not enough when bishops are hiding pedophiles and covering them up as scandals brew into full-on Strombolian eruptions. And you and I can pray our rosaries and go to confession and be good folks but we also need bishops and cardinals to stand up and loudly encourage the priests and deacons to preach the WORD and preach it loud! When’s the last time you heard a bishop, priest, or deacon stand up in a parish church and blast people for divorcing? When’s the last time you heard a hard, telling-the truth-in love sermon where a priest or deacon ripped apart cohabitation or pre-marital sex?

At my parish church, the biggest in the area (about 7,000 registered families, more who aren’t registered) they have NEVER had ONE class in NFP. They haven’t mentioned it ever either! I went to RCIA and it was passed over quickly and swept under the rug. There are no couple-to-couple league folks coming around and the assistant priest even told me it’s not realistic to do NFP. He said that the bishops and priests aren’t naive. They know it’s unrealistic and goofy so we don’t bother much with it. Don’t worry about it!

We have countries like the forementioned Philippines example I gave where they used to be devout. Now they’re nominal Catholics morally who go to Mass every Sunday. It’s appauling to see the libertine sexuality they have there. It’s worse than here I think. And the bishops, cardinals, nobody says boo. So can I blame these “shepherds” for not having the guts to stand up and blast a whole in Satan? YOU BET!

You can say I’m blaming them and that guys like me aren’t looking at the beam in my own eye, etc. etc. First of all, you have no idea how much I analyze my beams! I’m littered with beams. I have enough splinters in my eyes to build a few train tracks. And I know it and I’m working on it. And I often fall and try to get up with Christ’s help. But that doesn’t mean I can’t walk and chew gum. I can analyze myself and pray and try to grow in Christ and yet at the same time not put up with mediocrity and even corruption and lazy apathy from the Church hierarchy either, right?

I think you’re right, the teachings ARE there. You’re right. But the Church is an organic, living, breathing body that keeps these teachings warm, taught, vibrant, alive, and relevent. It doesn’t do the Church any good to have perfect teachings and to throw these perfect jewels into a dusty old cabinet and lock the door on them. We must expect MORE from the Church at the global, national, diocesan and parish level and more from ourselves at the same time. I’m glad you have a passion for catechesis and reading your faith, knowing it, and desiring to share it. Hopefully your passion will be contagious in your parish. Blessings.

gurney,

I admire your honesty, and it is clear that you do analyze the “beams” in your own eye. You are open about your questioning. Sadly, that can get you into trouble, when your questions focus on issues within Catholicism. Even saying this, you know that I do respect Catholicism. Otherwise, I would not consider it.

Still, as I read the posts between you and guanophore about how one is to view problems of those in the Catholic Church; I can’t help but see the difference in how Catholics speak about those in the Anglican Communion. The same charity is not extended. The Anglican Communion is being judged on the actions of certain members. Anyway, that’s a topic for other threads that are already open.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the various opposing opinions about so many things from what is ex cathedra to what is infallible to disagreements about the papacy and current Catholic Church being there like this day one versus development theory, and moral disagreements in here all reflect reality–Catholicism is as full of disagreement and chaos as many other denominations. Anglicanism is a disaster. Anyone who says otherwise is using meth. Anglicanism is a total mess. The difference between the two is one is very, very centrally-controlled and has a brilliant publicity and power structure that is very adept at putting out fires and keeping things up. The other has a weak central power structure with a goofball at the helm and no PR whatsoever. And the freedom within Anglicanism can act as a noose around its neck. But Anglicanism is not pretentious and doesn’t seek to tell you they have all the answers or have perfect unity. Catholicism is very much centered on the idea. And I think they don’t always deliver though most of the time they do.

Like you I respect Catholicism a GREAT deal as well. And I’m still very, very open to coming back to her. Some days I actually start to consider it and think of going to confession. Quite frankly some of the posters’ comments in here and the triumphalist, uncharitable, strange stuff keeps me from doing so LOL

Maybe in the end I should just use the horror movie approach. I mean, who do they call in to exorcize the possessed girl or kill the vampires or take care of business? It sure ain’t the Baptists!

gurney,

I admire your honesty, and it is clear that you do analyze the “beams” in your own eye. You are open about your questioning. Sadly, that can get you into trouble, when your questions focus on issues within Catholicism. Even saying this, you know that I do respect Catholicism. Otherwise, I would not consider it.

Still, as I read the posts between you and guanophore about how one is to view problems of those in the Catholic Church; I can’t help but see the difference in how Catholics speak about those in the Anglican Communion. The same charity is not extended. The Anglican Communion is being judged on the actions of certain members. Anyway, that’s a topic for other threads that are already open.

Anna

 

[guanophore]

Actually, I think you are all right. This is a first. lol. I think we should celebrate! :extrahappy:

“Blaming the Church for the failure of those who choose to live in sin is like blaming the Teachings of Christ because Judas betrayed Him.” I shouldn’t “join or not join a Church, just because of the character of the adherents.” At the same time, the idea of “by their fruits you shall know them,” will be considered on one level or another.

Anna

Except I notice you said in about three lines what took the rest of us a half a page…

 

[guanophore]

I’m not attempting to define the word “literal” in the framework of scholarly exegesis.

Since we are making a scholarly exegesis of the NT as well as the Papal statements, don’t you think that might be an appropriate beginning?

I used the word “literal” to mean “literal physical burning hell.”

Yes. This is why I said your premise is flawed. That which literally exists is not necessarily physical.

I You’ve “cherry picked” the article.

Actually, I could not read the article, so I took that from your post.

Evidently it is a misrepresentation; because, as the article said, "Vatican officials said that the Pope — who is also the Bishop of Rome — had been speaking in “straightfoward” language ‘like a parish priest’. He had wanted to reinforce the new Catholic catechism, which holds that Hell is a ‘state of eternal separation from God’, to be understood ‘symbolically rather than physically’. . . . ."

So, how does that equate to not being literally real? Hell, like heaven, exists outside of the space time continuum.

You also failed to comment on the other article, entitled, What the Pope really said about Hell."

I read your post, and cannot find anything in the statements that indicate there is not a literal hell.

Again, my issue is not the definition of “literal.” My issue is that I do not believe that hell is a literal burning. It’s not a physical place.[/qutoe]

Do you think this will make an appreciable difference to those that are contained within?
Anna Scott;6924020:

This tangent isn’t helping the issue. I’m not debating the space time continuum. I agree that hell, whatever that may be, is not in “space and time” as we know it.

That does not make it less literally real.

To clarify. I don't believe "the fires of hell" mentioned in the N.T refer to a literal-physical-burning hell. I'm not claiming that the fires of hell don't exist. I think "fire" is used symbolically rather than physically, and do not refer to the fire that we know in our physical space and time.

It is interesting that God plans to rejoin physical bodies to those who are contained there. Wonder why that might be?

Since we don't seem to be on the same page regarding the actual topic of our conversation, just tell me why you challenged my statement regarding Catholics not believing in a literal burning hell. You did say that apostates would burn in hell. Did you mean what you said?

I challenge your definition of “literal”. Hell is real. The fires of torment are real. They may not be flames as we know them on this earth, but there is an eternal fire into which the damned go, and they can never get out. Our minds are limited by our tendency to think of such conditions as “place” rather than state. The fact that it is a state makes it no less literally real.

 

[guanophore]

Being a good soldier doesn’t count for a lot if the general is corrupt and distracted, inaffective, and doesn’t guide the mission.

On what basis do you make this assertion? Why must one’s personal conduct and commitment in their vocation “not count for a lot” because another person does not carry himself in obedience and dignity?

Besides, Jesus is the Head of the church, and our willingness to follow Him in faith ALWAYS “counts for a lot” no matter what other people are doing. Don’t you remember what He said to Peter when Peter pointed to John and said “what about that guy?” We are to mind our own walk with God, and not allow it to be corrupted by those who have fallen into corruption.

 I agree with you that individual holiness and prayer and all the things you say are crucial. But just burying our heads in the sand, praying, and being personally holy is not enough when bishops are hiding pedophiles and covering them up as scandals brew into full-on Strombolian eruptions.

How do you know that? Have you been perfecting your holiness, fasting, and praying for those priests and their bishops? I contend that one of the reasons such scandals occur is because the clergy are not getting the support they need from the flock. I know I have never visited them, or prayed with them. I did not start fasting and praying until after the trouble became obvious, not before, as the members of the Body should do.

And you and I can pray our rosaries and go to confession and be good folks but we also need bishops and cardinals to stand up and loudly encourage the priests and deacons to preach the WORD and preach it loud!

I can’t argue with that. They will find the courage to do so much easier when the faithful are behind them with these kinds of devotional practices.

When's the last time you heard a bishop, priest, or deacon stand up in a parish church and blast people for divorcing?

The priests and bishops of the diocese in which I live exhort the parishioners to sacrificial love. They do not take the tact of “blasting people” when they fall into sin. I appreciate them for this.

When’s the last time you heard a hard, telling-the truth-in love sermon where a priest or deacon ripped apart cohabitation or pre-marital sex?

Since Fr. Corapi is on Catholic radio here every day, I usually get a daily dose.

Perhaps you feel called to this same type of ministry of exhortation?

At my parish church, the biggest in the area (about 7,000 registered families, more who aren’t registered) they have NEVER had ONE class in NFP. They haven’t mentioned it ever either!

Maybe they are waiting for you to get your act together, so you can offer it?

I went to RCIA and it was passed over quickly and swept under the rug. There are no couple-to-couple league folks coming around and the assistant priest even told me it’s not realistic to do NFP. He said that the bishops and priests aren’t naive. They know it’s unrealistic and goofy so we don’t bother much with it. Don’t worry about it!

Too bad it sounds like your priest needs some education. Maybe they did not cover NFP in his seminary?

We have countries like the forementioned Philippines example I gave where they used to be devout. Now they’re nominal Catholics morally who go to Mass every Sunday. It’s appauling to see the libertine sexuality they have there. It’s worse than here I think. And the bishops, cardinals, nobody says boo.

It seems that you are appropriately scandalized about sin, and the toleration of sin. It sounds like you are expecting someone else to do the ministry that you are being called to do.

So can [SIGN]I blame these “shepherds” for not having the guts to stand up [/SIGN]and blast a whole in Satan? YOU BET!

Ok. Blame others for things that you think ought to get done because they are not doing what you see needs to be done. Where does that get you? do you feel better now? Are you closer to God because you have blamed your brothers for their shortcomings? The lapsed for their sins?

Do you remember who is the Accuser of the Brethren?

 

[guanophore]

You can say I’m blaming them and that guys like me aren’t looking at the beam in my own eye, etc. etc. First of all, you have no idea how much I analyze my beams!

You are right, I don’t. But I also know that analyzing beams is not what gets them out. It is a good start, though. The things that annoy us in others are most likely the things in ourselves that we don’t like, and don’t want in our character.

I’m littered with beams. I have enough splinters in my eyes to build a few train tracks. And I know it and I’m working on it. And I often fall and try to get up with Christ’s help. But that doesn’t mean I can’t walk and chew gum. I can analyze myself and pray and try to grow in Christ and yet at the same time not put up with mediocrity and even corruption and lazy apathy from the Church hierarchy either, right?

Of course. But how does one “not put up with mediocrity” in others? What control have you over other’s choices to be corrupt, lazy, or apathetic? At the end of the day, ourselves are the only ones we can change.

I think you're right, the teachings ARE there. You're right.  But the Church is an organic, living, breathing body that keeps these teachings warm, taught, vibrant, alive, and relevent. It doesn't do the Church any good to have perfect teachings and to throw these perfect jewels into a dusty old cabinet and lock the door on them.

This is very true, and very consistent with Christ’s Teaching that we are to be the lamp on the table, not under a bushel.

We must expect MORE from the Church at the global, national, diocesan and parish level and more from ourselves at the same time.

I think this is true. The bar is supposed to be set high. The challenge is, how can passionate lay people fan the flames of our leadership to become the beacon on the hill.

I’m glad you have a passion for catechesis and reading your faith, knowing it, and desiring to share it. Hopefully your passion will be contagious in your parish. Blessings.

I can’t say I came by it very honestly. I was making the same kind of noise you are now, and pretty much forced myself into a position of having to learn my faith. I, like you, got very poor catechesis, and for the most part, very poor role modeling from many of my nuns and teachers. My home was not a paragon of virtue either. Authentic faith begins in the heart of each person, and when we put the hot coals together, we can really get something cooking!

 

[guanophore]

Still, as I read the posts between you and guanophore about how one is to view problems of those in the Catholic Church; I can’t help but see the difference in how Catholics speak about those in the Anglican Communion. The same charity is not extended. The Anglican Communion is being judged on the actions of certain members. Anyway, that’s a topic for other threads that are already open.

Anna

This is an interesting observation. Do you get the impression that I have more “charity” towards wayward leaders in the Catholic Church than I do the Anglican?

I think the Anglican Communion gets judged primarily in the light of the Reformation. Since those of us that were raised in the Apostolic Tradition have been taught that “church” is defined by the faithful in unity with the Bishops who succeeded the Apostles, by definition those ecclesial communities who have separated themselves from the successors of the Apostles are not considered true "churches’ by the definition passed down to us by the Apostles.

I am still working on getting used to Anglicans saying they are Catholic. I understand they have always seen themselves that way, but it is a bit of a mind bender for me.

I do have great respect for those who are considering moving away from the corruption that exists. And I pray that Jesus will continue to create unity among His flock.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think the various opposing opinions about so many things from what is ex cathedra to what is infallible to disagreements about the papacy and current Catholic Church being there like this day one versus development theory, and moral disagreements in here all reflect reality–Catholicism is as full of disagreement and chaos as many other denominations. Anglicanism is a disaster. Anyone who says otherwise is using meth. Anglicanism is a total mess. The difference between the two is one is very, very centrally-controlled and has a brilliant publicity and power structure that is very adept at putting out fires and keeping things up. The other has a weak central power structure with a goofball at the helm and no PR whatsoever. And the freedom within Anglicanism can act as a noose around its neck. But Anglicanism is not pretentious and doesn’t seek to tell you they have all the answers or have perfect unity. Catholicism is very much centered on the idea. And I think they don’t always deliver though most of the time they do.

Like you I respect Catholicism a GREAT deal as well. And I’m still very, very open to coming back to her. Some days I actually start to consider it and think of going to confession. Quite frankly some of the posters’ comments in here and the triumphalist, uncharitable, strange stuff keeps me from doing so LOL

Maybe in the end I should just use the horror movie approach. I mean, who do they call in to exorcize the possessed girl or kill the vampires or take care of business? It sure ain’t the Baptists!

Gurney,

I know. It “ain’t” easy, my friend. At least we have it narrowed down to three: Catholicism, EO, and Anglicanism. I’m all over the place when it comes to making a decision. Just when I think I have it figured out, something happens and I’m back at square one.

I’m with you, when it comes to things like exorcisms. I’d probably run to the nearest Catholic Priest. lol Maybe that should tell us something.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ay yay yay, guano. Why are you quizzing me as to how spiritual I am and assuming I’m not? I’m not going to answer this. Geez. This is getting into a works-based lens that I don’t want to look through. I think the bishops who hid the pedophiles and covered up for them moving them from diocese to diocese didn’t do so because they “weren’t getting enough support from the flock?” Why can’t we just admit that sometimes priests and bishops can be bad people like the rest of us…

But I digress. We aren’t getting anywhere so let’s just move on to another topic…baseball, fly fishing, whatever you want LOL How about major league baseball, that’s safe! Unless you’re a Dodgers fan then…well…

How do you know that? Have you been perfecting your holiness, fasting, and praying for those priests and their bishops? I contend that one of the reasons such scandals occur is because the clergy are not getting the support they need from the flock. I know I have never visited them, or prayed with them. I did not start fasting and praying until after the trouble became obvious, not before, as the members of the Body should do.

I

 

[GKC]

This is an interesting observation. Do you get the impression that I have more “charity” towards wayward leaders in the Catholic Church than I do the Anglican?

I think the Anglican Communion gets judged primarily in the light of the Reformation. Since those of us that were raised in the Apostolic Tradition have been taught that “church” is defined by the faithful in unity with the Bishops who succeeded the Apostles, by definition those ecclesial communities who have separated themselves from the successors of the Apostles are not considered true "churches’ by the definition passed down to us by the Apostles.

I am still working on getting used to Anglicans saying they are Catholic. I understand they have always seen themselves that way, but it is a bit of a mind bender for me.

I do have great respect for those who are considering moving away from the corruption that exists. And I pray that Jesus will continue to create unity among His flock.

You can find Anglicans who would never say, or have said that they were Catholic. And then there are others…

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus