What did the crowd not know?

[OneSheep]

This seems to be an interesting basis. Catholic spiritual formation is based upon the revelation of God. It is within the framework of what He has revealed as True that we interpret and understand our faith and experiences of the divine. Without the boundaries supplied by His revelation it is easy to get out of bounds with our own interpretations and experiences.

My statement was not contrary to this.

There is only one Truth, OS. There is not one version for me, and another for others. That is relativism, a concept soundly rejected by the CC.

I agree that there is only one Truth. When two people disagree, they are still both in touch with that Truth (i.e. “legitimate differences”), but as Pope Benedict said, we are to find harmony.

We can find harmony, guanophore. The biggest disagreement you have against my views is that I have observed that no one knowingly and willingly rejects God, which has a basis in “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” If my observation is invalid, that is, untruthful, then simply present your own observation, and we can scrutinize it. Or, if you would like me to explain my point, I can. We can start fresh, here, without your inference of “confirmation bias”. You have the opportunity to extend my experience, and I invite you to do so.

In the mean time, it is very helpful in understanding people to be aware of the fact that people do not know what they are doing, as Jesus observed. It is Christian, guanophore, to make the same observation. In my experience it is very fruitful to make the effort to understand what it means.

I accept what the CC teaches about this:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Persons who are baptized Catholic, and renew their baptismal vows annually and are in Communion with the faith into which they are baptized are bound by Catholic Canon Law

Notice: the criteria for communion was “belief in Christ” and “baptized”. There is no further extension or implication. OneSheep and Guanophore are in communion, as best I can see! Did you notice also in communion with the Church? The Church is the family, the whole family. It is not simply individuals and their individual relationship to God. This is another theme that Cardinal Ratzinger emphasized in his books quite often.

 

[simpleas]

I don’t think anyone that “joins” understands “everything”. Especially those who are baptized into the faith as infants! We are all expected to grow in our faith, including those that are received as adults.

Catholics who are confirmed and converts who are validly baptized being received into the Church make an affirmation of faith:

The text for the profession of faith at Confirmation is often a memorized response by the candidate, no leeway on wording is given in the rite:

*** “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”***

This can be done in faith, since the newly received may have only a fundamental knowledge of the faith. It is as much a statement of trust, that the candidate trusts that Jesus will reveal all that is not yet understood.

Yes, I have a lot of these too.

Yes, struggle is what we are all called to enter. I agree with you that “making people feel they do not belong” is not helpful to the struggle, but neither is it helpful to pretend that failure to understand and fully accept is not a call to study, spiritual formation, an struggle. If we think we are perfectly formed in faith, how will that help us to grow?



I think OS enjoys trying to paint me into a corner.

To me that would be the whole point of this thread, that none of us are perfect in their faith, we need to continue to grow in understanding, trust, etc.
Each person is on a ‘different level’ in their journey, some people give up before they have even tried, then return later, some never, some stay struggling, etc etc, this I think you know.

You have your understanding, I have mine, Onesheep his etc, we all believe the basics, mostly (i think) through what we have experienced in life, rather than what we read someone else experienced, if you get my meaning.

 

[guanophore]

My statement was not contrary to this.

I agree. My point is that it is lacking this.

I agree that there is only one Truth. When two people disagree, they are still both in touch with that Truth (i.e. “legitimate differences”), but as Pope Benedict said, we are to find harmony.

Sometimes, but not always. There are times when one or both parties can be quite far from the Truth.

 We can find harmony, guanophore.  The biggest disagreement you have against my views is that I have observed that no one knowingly and willingly rejects God, which has a basis in "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

This is just the one I have frequented, because it is closer to the topic. I actually have some even greater concerns than this one.

If my observation is invalid, that is, untruthful, then simply present your own observation, and we can scrutinize it. Or, if you would like me to explain my point, I can. We can start fresh, here, without your inference of “confirmation bias”. You have the opportunity to extend my experience, and I invite you to do so.

I think your thread on this topic makes it clear where that will end.

In the mean time, it is very helpful in understanding people to be aware of the fact that people do not know what they are doing, as Jesus observed. It is Christian, guanophore, to make the same observation. In my experience it is very fruitful to make the effort to understand what it means.

So, for example, I would take the stance that you think no one knowingly and willingly rejects God because you don’t know any better?

Notice: the criteria for communion was “belief in Christ” and “baptized”. There is no further extension or implication. OneSheep and Guanophore are in communion, as best I can see! Did you notice also in communion with the Church? The Church is the family, the whole family. It is not simply individuals and their individual relationship to God.

Yes, but everyone has a different understanding of what it means to be “in Christ”. The Church defines this in the vows of confirmation, to believe all that the Church teaches and proposes for our belief. Persons who do not do this are imperfectly united to varying degrees. Yes, we are to maintain the bond of communion between ourselves, but we ourselves are not the Source of that bond. It is in our relationship to Christ that creates it.

To me that would be the whole point of this thread, that none of us are perfect in their faith, we need to continue to grow in understanding, trust, etc.
Each person is on a ‘different level’ in their journey, some people give up before they have even tried, then return later, some never, some stay struggling, etc etc, this I think you know.

I agree that this is the point of CAF, that we are all at different places in the spiritual journey, and we can help each other to grow. As far as this thread, and every thread where I have met the OP, I think the goal is to present the Gospel of One Sheep.

You have your understanding, I have mine, Onesheep his etc, we all believe the basics, mostly (i think) through what we have experienced in life, rather than what we read someone else experienced, if you get my meaning.

I don’t think we do all believe the basics, like the inspired and inerrant nature of the Scriptures, for examples. This is one basic tenent of Christianity that is even still retained by our separated brethren.

I am thinking that it has more to do with how we interpret our experiences than the experiences themselves, as we all perceive things differently. A Catholic perspective would interpret experience through what God has revealed about humanity. If a person is unable to accept what has been revealed already, it will limit that persons ability to perceive experience through it.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by guanophore

I agree that this is the point of CAF, that we are all at different places in the spiritual journey, and we can help each other to grow. As far as this thread, and every thread where I have met the OP, I think the goal is to present the Gospel of One Sheep.

First sentence :yup:

Second sentence, I have heard posters say this before about Onesheep, I do not see it like that, I see it as a posters opinion/thought/reflection. But hey, we read things differently I suppose.

I don’t think we do all believe the basics, like the inspired and inerrant nature of the Scriptures, for examples. This is one basic tenent of Christianity that is even still retained by our separated brethren.

I am thinking that it has more to do with how we interpret our experiences than the experiences themselves, as we all perceive things differently. A Catholic perspective would interpret experience through what God has revealed about humanity. If a person is unable to accept what has been revealed already, it will limit that persons ability to perceive experience through it.

Far enough. However most all our experiences come in childhood, maybe not for everyone, so unless a child understands all that has been revealed and can perceive the experience through Catholicism, then they are going to have some error/ non perfected learning about what it means to be a perfectly practising Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

Notice: the criteria for communion was “belief in Christ” and “baptized”. There is no further extension or implication. OneSheep and Guanophore are in communion, as best I can see! Did you notice also in communion with the Church? The Church is the family, the whole family. It is not simply individuals and their individual relationship to God. This is another theme that Cardinal Ratzinger emphasized in his books quite often.

Some level of communion exists among all those validly baptized. CAtholics who have been confirmed took vows to assent to all the Church believes and teaches.

We have imperfect communion to the extent that individual members stray from the One Faith.

Are all Catholics truly in communion with the Church?

A number of Bishops and Cardinals have weighed in on the matter of dissenters presenting themselves for communion improperly disposed.

A lot of this has to do with very public figures who defy Church teachings.

What about the reception of Holy Communion by those who stand in public opposition to church teaching?

 

[LethalMouse]

I think I am lost. I thought you were referring to the question in post 189 but perhaps you are not?

Which was the “issue” where I got “beat”?

You make it sound like some kind of contest where there is winning and losing!

You were asked directly about Orthodox communion and deliberately did not answer. You used not answering as an amexcuse not to have to consider anything in his point.

You executer poor form and the most common form of malintent on this forum akin to lying and manipulating so you did not have to let down your personal bias. It is a pet peeve.

But in terms of honest debate you lost on this… now I havent read EVERY post but OS seems to be an honest debater. Whether right/wrong, his form is honest vs manipulative IMO

 

[guanophore]

You were asked directly about Orthodox communion and deliberately did not answer. You used not answering as an amexcuse not to have to consider anything in his point.

OIC.

I accept the Church teaching that the relationship between the CC and the Orthodox 'lacks little" to be in full communion. There are circumstances where Orthodox validly receive Eucharist in the CC and vice versa. I also pray for unity. I think the healing of the schism between East and West would go a long way toward healing the wounds of the Reformation. I know many Protestants on CAF that have expressed eagerness to be in union with the successor of Peter if the EO separation is resolved.

Maybe I did not understand the question properly? It seems clear to me that there are degrees of unity. We have the most unity with the EO, such that members of each can validly accept sacraments in the other, but full communion is still lacking.

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Notice: the criteria for communion was “belief in Christ” and “baptized”. There is no further extension or implication.

Perhaps not in this particular paragraph, but there are very many further explications and implications of this. It says “a certain, though imperfect communion”.

What I neglected to say is that baptized Catholics who dissent from the Teachings of the Church are also placing themselves in imperfect communion. The indelible mark of baptism cannot be reversed, but that does not mean a Catholic is in right relationship to the Church.

This is a commentary by Archbishop John Myers. It is about politicians who publicly dissent on Church teaching, but there are some relevant points made here:

“Catholics who publicly dissent from the Church’s teaching on the right to life of all unborn children should recognize that they have freely chosen by their own actions to separate themselves from what the Church believes and teaches. They have also separated themselves in a significant way from the Catholic community.

“The Church cannot force such people to change their position; but she can and does ask them honestly to admit in the public forum that they are not in full union with the Church.

“One who practices such dissent, even in the mistaken belief that it is permissible, may remain a Catholic in some sense, but has abandoned the full Catholic faith. For such a person to express ‘communion’ with Christ and His Church by the reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is objectively dishonest.”

This is not a new teaching of the Church. From the earliest years, it has been pointed out that one cannot claim to be a Christian and yet believe other than what the Church teaches. In the second century St. Justin Martyr described the Eucharist in this way: “No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.”

So when we dissent from the teachings of the Church whether privately or publicly, we place ourselves in an imperfect state of communion. We engage in a wound to unity. There is more to being in right relationship than just baptism. The expression “belief in Christ” is all encompassing. It means believe in all that He taught, not just picking and choosing parts.

I have tried to make this a more complete answer, as this was not the part of the post I was trying to avoid. I moved my response to the more personal part into private messaging because I did not want to answer it in public.

You executer poor form and the most common form of malintent on this forum akin to lying and manipulating so you did not have to let down your personal bias. It is a pet peeve.

I think I am lost again here. Do you think I have a personal bias against the Orthodox? Or are you saying I have a personal bias against CAF members who claim to be Catholic while rejecting the teachings of the Church?

Are you saying it is a pet peeve of mine, or yours?

But in terms of honest debate you lost on this..... now I havent read EVERY post but OS seems to be an honest debater. Whether right/wrong, his form is honest vs manipulative IMO

The only part of his actions I experience as manipulative is the efforts to get me to comply with “handshaking” because I do not believe handshaking creates Eucharistic communion. I don’t even see that as dishonest, though, I think there is a genuine desire to have communion in a way that does not seem to exist.

 

[guanophore]

Second sentence, I have heard posters say this before about Onesheep, I do not see it like that, I see it as a posters opinion/thought/reflection. But hey, we read things differently I suppose.

I read back through the posting history. Catholics have been telling OS there is Catholicity lacking for at least 2 years.

Far enough. However most all our experiences come in childhood, maybe not for everyone, so unless a child understands all that has been revealed and can perceive the experience through Catholicism, then they are going to have some error/ non perfected learning about what it means to be a perfectly practising Catholic.

I am not sure what you mean by “most all of our experiences come in childhood”. Do you mean how we form a concept of God/Faith? No child or even an adult neophyte can understand “all that has been revealed.” After 2000 years, it seems to me that there is not a person on the face of the earth that can read all that has been written by the Church.

I do not think there is any such thing as a “perfectly practicing Catholic”, as we all fall short. I guess you could say that a Catholic “practicing perfectly” uses confession when falling short, and they are in agreement with all that the Church teaches, or at least give assent that if they are not in agreement, they are praying that the Holy Spirit will bring them there.

I think we can all grow in our faith and I have grown quite a bit since coming to CAF. God is so deep there is no limit to how far we can explore and experience.

The point I am trying to make is that it is limiting and potentially deforming to try to do this growth outside of what God has revealed. And I don’t mean stories of other people only (like the Scriptures and writings of saints), but understanding our selves and our experiences within the framework of what God has revealed. I don’t see this in OS’s posts, and in fact, I have read several posts denying what the Church receives as revelation from God.

This only is a “pet peeve” of mine when the poster identifies as “Catholic”, and yet, denies fundamental aspects of the One Faith.

 

[OneSheep]

To me that would be the whole point of this thread, that none of us are perfect in their faith, we need to continue to grow in understanding, trust, etc.
Each person is on a ‘different level’ in their journey, some people give up before they have even tried, then return later, some never, some stay struggling, etc etc, this I think you know.

You have your understanding, I have mine, Onesheep his etc, we all believe the basics, mostly (i think) through what we have experienced in life, rather than what we read someone else experienced, if you get my meaning.

Hi Simpleas!

I do learn from my own experiences, and I learn from others’ also. For example, I have learned a lot from your experiences and especially your charity. I learn from people who are charitable. When people are not charitable, I mostly learn not to be like they are.

I learn a lot from people who live life and experience Jesus with joy! You communicate that joy, Simpleas.

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello, guanophore!

I agree. My point is that it is lacking this.

“My faith” are inclusive words, they include revelation from Christ, which is the basis of my faith.

Sometimes, but not always. There are times when one or both parties can be quite far from the Truth.

There is at least a little truth in almost everything people say, in my observation. I don’t think you are denying this here.

This is just the one I have frequented, because it is closer to the topic. I actually have some even greater concerns than this one.

I am thinking that it might be really cool for you to simply make a list, one time, of all the things you think I said that go against the Church, Bible, Church teachings, etc. The items that you simply inferred from my statements can be weeded out as you will not be able to prove I said them. The rest I have supported from either the CCC or from Saints or recent Catholic material. So, please, friend, get it over with and line them all up. I have answered them all before, but if we can get them all into one post, I can answer and refer back to them when you bring them up again, okay?

I think your thread on this topic makes it clear where that will end.

Is this the Truth? Makes it clear to you.

So, for example, I would take the stance that you think no one knowingly and willingly rejects God because you don’t know any better?

Now your talking! Of course, this is quite possible, maybe I don’t know any better! You could try to educate me by explaining how someone could K&WRG, but you have decided that it is fruitless. In fact, we get to a certain point and you just don’t answer my questions. Silence does not make your point, guanophore. Silence only means you have no response.

Yes, but everyone has a different understanding of what it means to be “in Christ”. The Church defines this in the vows of confirmation, to believe all that the Church teaches and proposes for our belief. Persons who do not do this are imperfectly united to varying degrees. Yes, we are to maintain the bond of communion between ourselves, but we ourselves are not the Source of that bond. It is in our relationship to Christ that creates it.

I agree with all of the above. I especially liked “we are to maintain the bond of communion between ourselves…”

I agree that this is the point of CAF, that we are all at different places in the spiritual journey, and we can help each other to grow. As far as this thread, and every thread where I have met the OP, I think the goal is to present the Gospel of One Sheep.

I think we all have testimonies, guanophore. I have experienced Christ in a way that changes my life, so I have a story to tell. Like everyone else, though, I learn and grow from interacting with others. Something from your God-spell is going to add to my God-spell, in spite of your cantankerousness!

I don’t think we do all believe the basics, like the inspired and inerrant nature of the Scriptures, for examples. This is one basic tenent of Christianity that is even still retained by our separated brethren.

The scripture scholar who taught us told that we can take verses in the Bible literally as long as they do not contradict the Bible as a whole. To me, much of the OT needs to be reinterpreted and explained in light of revelation from Christ.

Are you ready for me to demonstrate ironing out contradictions using the parable of the unforgiving servant as an example?

Make that list, guanophore!

 

[OneSheep]

Hi LethalMouse,

Back to the tread topic…

Did you get a chance to think about the questions I posed on post 192? Here are the comments/questions:

What I am doing is trying to involve people in considering the universality of the words that Jesus spoke. In my own experience, I have found this to be the case. Whenever anyone does anything hurtful to anyone, including themselves, they do not know what they are doing. As was earlier presented in this thread, St. Thomas Aquinas said something along the same lines. Have you considered this?

Jesus gave us the means to forgiveness, the means of course begins with the will to forgive, but also a mature forgiveness involves understanding other people. To me, seeing “for they know not what they do” demonstrates a mature understanding of people and is the path to a deeper forgiveness. Is this your experience?

Thanks!

 

[simpleas]

I read back through the posting history. Catholics have been telling OS there is Catholicity lacking for at least 2 years.

I am not sure what you mean by “most all of our experiences come in childhood”. Do you mean how we form a concept of God/Faith? No child or even an adult neophyte can understand “all that has been revealed.” After 2000 years, it seems to me that there is not a person on the face of the earth that can read all that has been written by the Church.

I do not think there is any such thing as a “perfectly practicing Catholic”, as we all fall short. I guess you could say that a Catholic “practicing perfectly” uses confession when falling short, and they are in agreement with all that the Church teaches, or at least give assent that if they are not in agreement, they are praying that the Holy Spirit will bring them there.

I think we can all grow in our faith and I have grown quite a bit since coming to CAF. God is so deep there is no limit to how far we can explore and experience.

The point I am trying to make is that it is limiting and potentially deforming to try to do this growth outside of what God has revealed. And I don’t mean stories of other people only (like the Scriptures and writings of saints), but understanding our selves and our experiences within the framework of what God has revealed. I don’t see this in OS’s posts, and in fact, I have read several posts denying what the Church receives as revelation from God.

This only is a “pet peeve” of mine when the poster identifies as “Catholic”, and yet, denies fundamental aspects of the One Faith.

Yes experience of God/faith, but also of people around us. What we experience of the world around us must have an impact on the formation of our consciences, and sometimes our conscience tells us something different.
I think the church tells us we must obey our conscience, but what it means by that I don’t know.

I’m not sure what has been denied, I think from what I’ve read, is that thoughts add to our discussion. But I do respect that each person has their own way of understanding God.

 

[LethalMouse]

Hi LethalMouse,

Back to the tread topic…

Did you get a chance to think about the questions I posed on post 192? Here are the comments/questions:

What I am doing is trying to involve people in considering the universality of the words that Jesus spoke. In my own experience, I have found this to be the case. Whenever anyone does anything hurtful to anyone, including themselves, they do not know what they are doing. As was earlier presented in this thread, St. Thomas Aquinas said something along the same lines. Have you considered this?

Jesus gave us the means to forgiveness, the means of course begins with the will to forgive, but also a mature forgiveness involves understanding other people. To me, seeing “for they know not what they do” demonstrates a mature understanding of people and is the path to a deeper forgiveness. Is this your experience?

Thanks!

If you are referring to sin without knowledge, than that is consistent with the CCC. The CCC says that it is generally not mortal sin if you are mentally limited to be incapable of knowing what you are doing.

There then in regards to say the communion topic…someone could take communion while sinning bc they don’t know any better. But this is also a dangerous ideal since one must not sin for the sake of grace. So if you focus on grace over attempting to live as God commands… you get the protestant idea of you can be Hitler and keep slaughtering people so long as you use Jesus’s name as a magic get out of jail free card. That “could” come from ignorance too…but I would from an earthly standpoint question the motives of most of these…

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Lethal,

If you are referring to sin without knowledge, than that is consistent with the CCC. The CCC says that it is generally not mortal sin if you are mentally limited to be incapable of knowing what you are doing.

So, I have no purpose to make excuses for people, but what I have observed in people’s reasons for doing things is that whenever they do anything hurtful to someone else, they do not know what they are doing, regardless of the degree of harm.

The way I am looking at it, Jesus looked upon the sin of those who were in the act of such sin, and a grave sin at that, and saw that they did not know what they were doing. In doing so, He modeled a means by which we can forgive others in a more mature way, by understanding what is/is not going on in their minds.

Have you ever dedicated some time to prayer and reflection on this when addressing your own past? Have you observed that when you did awful things to others, you did not know what you were doing? Of course, we can look after-the-fact upon our sin and say “I should have know better” which is exactly the way we should look upon our sin, with a shot of triggered guilt to help modify our future behaviors. This is all natural, but we can also come to a deeper understanding as to why we behaved the way we did in the first place, and Jesus models such observation. The result, as He stated, is forgiveness. Have you so observed?

There then in regards to say the communion topic…someone could take communion while sinning bc they don’t know any better. But this is also a dangerous ideal since one must not sin for the sake of grace. So if you focus on grace over attempting to live as God commands… you get the protestant idea of you can be Hitler and keep slaughtering people so long as you use Jesus’s name as a magic get out of jail free card. That “could” come from ignorance too…but I would from an earthly standpoint question the motives of most of these…

Well, I have never known any Protestants who hold such ideas, but it is possible, I suppose, for Catholics or Protestants or anyone else. Did Hitler have a clue what he was doing? There is no reason to make excuses for Hitler, but there is reason to understand and forgive him, as I did, because I held something against him.

Did you hold something against him? If so, how did you go about forgiving him? (i.e. did Luke 23:34, the basis of this thread, help?

Thanks for replying!!

 

[guanophore]

Your comments (guanophore) are uncharitable.

I do learn from my own experiences, and I learn from others’ also… I learn from people who are charitable. When people are not charitable, I mostly learn not to be like they are.

Us (charitable) and “them” (the uncharitable)

So, how is that shadow work coming along, OS?

What happened to that powerful “gift of understanding” you are always promoting?


What happened to all this great sounding stuff?

OneSheep:

It is by knowing that God loves unconditionally that we can learn to forgive others without condition. It is through forgiving others that we continue to be involved in creating the Kingdom. It is through understanding that we are enabled to forgive in the more mature way, a way that for adults erases all resentment. Included in that understanding of others is the observation that people do not know what they are doing when they sin. All sin can be seen to occur in this context, in the context of lack of awareness.

What did the crowd not know? They knew they were part of the great ignorant and unwashed, and were part of “them” and not part of “us”. They knew their leaders believed they were better, more educated, closer to following the Law.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, guanophore!

Us (charitable) and “them” (the uncharitable)

It’s not an “us” and “them” that I am referring to, guanophore. In context, I was referring to behaviors. I have no problem admitting that my own conscience is formed in sync with many of the fellow Catholics and Americans around me. When people point at another Catholic and say “Your views are not Catholic” and “Your views are anti-Catholic” and so forth, including a refusal to shake hands, this violates my conscience, those are disrespectful/hurtful words and behaviors. I would not do or say these things to others, because I would not want others to do or say these things to me.

So, how is that shadow work coming along, OS?

Well, there is always work to do, once I discover something new. Do you have any suggestions?

What happened to that powerful “gift of understanding” you are always promoting?

I understand why I would do the uncharitable things you do. If I were accusing someone of lying about the sincerity of their affiliation (for which you apologized when you did to me, and I am grateful) it would be because I was blinded by resentment or anger, and/or just plain lacking in awareness. However, you are saying you do not resent me at all.

So, the next question to be addressed, in my mind, is "why does he refuse to shake my hand and say my views are “non-Catholic”, etc. if he does not feel resentful toward me?’ My answer is that sometimes I am in denial that I feel resentful towards someone when I actually do, I am blinded of the possibility of my own resentment/blame of others.

This may very well be the case, guanophore. Your behaviors and words toward me and my posts have triggered some resentment, and I need to understand and forgive (yes, I am not perfect! ). I can offer more about my specific understanding of your motives and opinions, but it would be lengthy and bring up new side discussions, which is unnecessary. The conclusion I have is that you are well-intended and have good reasons for what you do.

I forgive you, guanophore, neither one of us knows what we are doing.

Do you see how this “side discussion” relates to the question of this thread?

What happened to all this great sounding stuff?

Thanks for the compliment, guanophore! (About it being great sounding stuff). Do you see something different between that post and this thread? Please let me know, such information is useful and valuable to me. If you think that it is off-topic, feel free to PM me.

What did the crowd not know? They knew they were part of the great ignorant and unwashed, and were part of “them” and not part of “us”. They knew their leaders believed they were better, more educated, closer to following the Law.

I think that what you are saying is that the crowd was in some kind of “wannabe” state, that they considered themselves ignorant and elevated the leadership. On the other hand, if they considered themselves outcast, then they would have related more to Jesus, which would have greatly diminished their call for His crucifixion. You may have a point, but I am a little confused about the them/us aspect.

God Bless you, guanophore! Your challenges continue to bring forth new things we do not know.

 

[guanophore]

I understand why I would do the uncharitable things you do. If I were accusing someone of lying about the sincerity of their affiliation (for which you apologized when you did to me, and I am grateful)

It seems clear, after researching some of your posting history, that you really do believe that your views are Catholic.

So, the next question to be addressed, in my mind, is "why does he refuse to shake my hand

The initial request was made in the context of a non-Catholic view of Holy Eucharist which I found offputting. Since that time the gesture has become loaded with so many other meanings it is difficult to hold all of them in the said hand.

and say my views are “non-Catholic” if he does not feel resentful toward me?

Because the views are not Catholic. I don’t have any problem with heterodox views, or Humanistic views. I am having a lively dialog with a Reformed Christian on another thread. The difference is that she does not claim to be Catholic.

I am wondering of you consider all the other Catholics at CAF who have told you that your views are not Catholic to be “uncharitable” as well?

 I can offer more about my specific understanding of your motives and opinions, but it would be lengthy and bring up new side discussions, which is unnecessary.

And it would say more about you than it would about me, as that is the nature of projections.

Thanks for the compliment, guanophore! (About it being great sounding stuff). Do you see something different between that post and this thread? Please let me know, such information is useful and valuable to me.

.

Yes. I think if the only thing you can learn from persons that are “uncharitable” is to “not be like them” then all that wonderful sounding stuff is pretty empty.

I think that what you are saying is that the crowd was in some kind of “wannabe” state, that they considered themselves ignorant and elevated the leadership.

No, I don’t think they wanted to be like their leadership, and did not respect them. Jesus told them to respect their position, because they sat on the “seat of Moses” but not to follow their example.

On the other hand, if they considered themselves outcast, then they would have related more to Jesus, which would have greatly diminished their call for His crucifixion.

I think they did feel more understood and supported by Jesus, and were much quicker to repent after the fact. 3000 of them on Pentecost. We sure don’t see that rate of conversion among the leadership!

 

[OneSheep]

The initial request was made in the context of a non-Catholic view of Holy Eucharist which I found offputting. Since that time the gesture has become loaded with so many other meanings it is difficult to hold all of them in the said hand.

Actually, I gave you several opportunities to shake my hand, and all were rejected. First, if I remember right, I just asked to shake hands as a fellow Catholic, with no strings attached. Next, (at the beginning of this thread) I asked to shake hands in agreement to be charitable. Finally, I asked simply to shake hands in mutual respect. All were turned down.

What I am saying, guanophore, is that I would not do this to others, I find it uncharitable. It is disrespectful and hurtful. Hanging Christ on the cross was hurtful and disrespectful, but to an infinitely higher degree. But the concept is the same, I avoid doing to others as I would not have them do to me, and I am not shy about explaining what is hurtful/disrespectful and what is not.

Because the views are not Catholic. I don’t have any problem with heterodox views, or Humanistic views. I am having a lively dialog with a Reformed Christian on another thread. The difference is that she does not claim to be Catholic.

Well, if it is the one I am thinking about, she did claim to be Catholic at first. Would you have shaken her hand? You see, your conscience formation has been different than mine. We are all a little different. Your saying that my “views are not Catholic” is something that I would not do to others. An aside: she seemed like nice person, I asked myself, ‘why did she get chased away?’.

Now, I may ask a person how they can support a particular behavior as Catholic. For example, what support do you have that a refusal to shake hands and pointing to another person’s views as “not Catholic” is in itself Catholic? I supported the opposite, putting this forth:

New International Version
How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Luke 6:42

I am wondering of you consider all the other Catholics at CAF who have told you that your views are not Catholic to be “uncharitable” as well?

The words are uncharitable, yes. The people mean well (all one or two of them), but they do not know what they are doing. Now, just in case you are inspired to go count how many others have called my views unCatholic, ask yourself, “Am I doing this to honor OneSheep, or to dishonor him?”

And it would say more about you than it would about me, as that is the nature of projections.

Exactly, of course! But remember this: I use the word “projection” in the all encompassing way. I see the good reasons why I would do what you do, and I project those good reasons onto you. Do you have reasons that are not good? That is out of my scope.

Yes. I think if the only thing you can learn from persons that are “uncharitable” is to “not be like them” then all that wonderful sounding stuff is pretty empty.

We can learn not to behave like people who act uncharitably. I am observing that when people see politicians, for example, saying things that are uncharitable to others, we do not rush to embrace their opinions. Do you agree, or do you prefer opinions of people who behave meanly to others?

No, I don’t think they wanted to be like their leadership, and did not respect them. Jesus told them to respect their position, because they sat on the “seat of Moses” but not to follow their example.

I think they did feel more understood and supported by Jesus…

Are you thinking that the crowd was not genuine in their condemnation of Jesus?

 

[guanophore]

 Actually, I gave you several opportunities to shake my hand, and all were rejected. First, if I remember right, I just asked to shake hands as a fellow Catholic, with no strings attached.

Perhaps for you, there were no strings, but for me, it seemed like an effort to have non-Catholic views accepted as Catholic. Later, more and more strings became attached to it.

Next, (at the beginning of this thread) I asked to shake hands in agreement to be charitable. Finally, I asked simply to shake hands in mutual respect. All were turned down.

Yeah, the more meanings that got loaded into it, and the more negative appraisals on my character for declining the further away I became.

What I am saying, guanophore, is that I would not do this to others, I find it uncharitable.  It is disrespectful and hurtful.  Hanging Christ on the cross was hurtful and disrespectful, but to an infinitely higher degree.  But the concept is the same, I avoid doing to others as I would not have them do to me, and I am not shy about explaining what is hurtful/disrespectful and what is not.

I see that. I see that you have different ways of demonstrating your disrespect and approval. I gave many examples in post 154 of things I found uncharitable, disrespectful, and hurtful. As it stands, it appears what you consider disrespectful has more value and importance than what I find hurtful.

Well, if it is the one I am thinking about, she did claim to be Catholic at first. Would you have shaken her hand? You see, your conscience formation has been different than mine. We are all a little different.

I doubt I would feel comfortable shaking hands with anyone who has mounted the level of pressure around it that you have. The more pushing there is, the further I sense myself backing away. You claim that you have been trying to “educate” me in how to show respect, but I have experienced it as badgering and condescending. I don’t think people learn well when they feel that way.

 Your saying that my "views are not Catholic" is something that I would not do to others.  An aside: she seemed like nice person, I asked myself, 'why did she get chased away?'

I am not sure if we have the same person in mind, but people who want to think their views are Catholic, and are repeatedly told they are not do tend to get very defensive.

Now, I may ask a person how they can support a particular behavior as Catholic.  For example, what support do you have that a refusal to shake hands and pointing to another person's views as "not Catholic" is in itself Catholic?

This is why I say that knowledge about what the Church teaches does not necessarily make anyone a “better Catholic”. That knowledge does not always translate itself into behavior. Satan knows the Scripture, and quoted it to Jesus, but that did not make him a “better” angel.

 I supported the opposite, putting this forth:

New International Version
How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Luke 6:42

The words are uncharitable, yes.

are you saying that you believe this quote from Luke is “uncharitable”?

  Now, just in case you are inspired to go count how many others have called my views unCatholic, ask yourself, "Am I doing this to honor OneSheep, or to dishonor him?"

I started listing before you encouraged me to make a list. The list of people who have told you that your views are not Catholic just spontaneously occurred in the course of the other list.

I am doing the list for neither reason. I recognize that you will feel dishonored by me no matter what I do, unless it is complete compliance with your wishes.

We can learn not to behave like people who act uncharitably.

If you just substitute one offensive behavior for another, I am not sure where there is a benefit.

 I am observing that when people see politicians, for example, saying things that are uncharitable to others, we do not rush to embrace their opinions. Do you agree, or do you prefer opinions of people who behave meanly to others?

I find mean comments off putting. Once someone has been mean, I am less likely to give much credence to what they say.

I think this is why the crowds had less respect for the Sanhedrin. Word probably got around about the insulting things they said to members of the community, and they lost respect.

 

[guanophore]

Do you see something different[ between that post ](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12284841&postcount=617)and this thread?  Please let me know, such information is useful and valuable to me.

Insofar as you are still promoting deviation from Catholic Teaching as still Catholic, no, I do not find a difference. In some ways, nothing has changed.

" I think it is time for the CCC to line out the difference between differing spiritual journeys, which lead to differing views of God, and heterodoxy. We can have people with differing views of God belong to the same Church, why not? Why does every person have to be a round peg that fits into a round hole? Do we not have an enormous variety in relationships with Abba? Why not have the CCC reflect this reality by being less specific instead of more? Every word added to every doctrine can be read in a nearly infinite number of ways, as many ways, theoretically, as there are people on Earth. If anything, the doctrine perhaps could be simplified to allow for more differences in peoples’ relationship with God.

It is the creed that unites us, it is ultimately the Eucharist that unites us. Anyone who seeks to divide us based on doctrinal interpretation, well, that is their issue. I, for one, find nothing that divides me from anyone else who calls himself Christian. I, for one, find nothing that divides me from anyone who calls himself human. The Eucharist unites. Love unites!

You seem to want the Church to change it’s doctrines to accommodate your views. The CCC needs to be updated, and edited, and clarified, etc. so that deviations from the traditional concepts of what is Catholic can be accommodated.

This is a good example:
[
Doctrine is not the same now as it was hundreds of years ago.

OneSheep:
](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12284841&postcount=617)

The CCC teaches that doctrine is what was deposited by Christ, through the Apostles to the Church. It was a “once for all” deposit. It cannot be added to, or subtracted from. It is immutable, since it comes from Christ, who is immutable. A statement like this would seem to indicate that you do not accept what the Church believes and teaches.