What teachings would the Catholic Church have to drop for you to be a catholic

[VARC]

It is not acceptable to the Catholic Church, either. The Church defines repentance and contrition differently from the case you presented above.

That is debatable, even doubtful.

Sheesh…tell us how you really feel.

 

[guanophore]

For me to ever even consider becoming catholic again after being there for 23 years (baptized, confirmed and through school education) the church would have to go through radical changes…

Abolition of the following:

1. Veneration of the saints, especially Mary
2. Praying to saints (addressing someone else than God in a prayer is praying to that person… e.g “Hail Mary”… They cannot hear these prayers anyway… it is far better to ask a brother or sister in Christ who is among the living to pray)
3. Current definition of “saint” as every member of the true church is a saint already and we are justified through Him… Paul talks to and about the members of the churches as saints.
4. Transubstantiation…
5. Adoration of the eucharist (blasphemy) instead of focusing on the Word of God
6. Perpetual adoration
7. Special priesthood…
8. Only the church and especially the pope can interpret scripture
9. Infallibility of the pope when he is speaking ex cathedra
10. Sacraments as a means of salvation (works do follow once we are saved because we are already saved)
11. Infant baptism
12. Confession to a priest (though I think that general spiritual guidance and help is appropriate when sought… confessions however are to be made to God)
13. Forgiveness of sins through the church
14. Prayer for the deceased (if they are in hell it is too late… if they are in heaven there is no need)
15. Purgatory (It is either heaven or hell… either a full atonement through the sacrifice of the Lord or none)
16. Classification of sins (the wages of sin is death)
17. Salvation as a graduate process
18. Apocrypha
19. Teachings about Mary, including her staying a virgin after Jesus was born, the assumption that she was without sin and the she ascended into heaven with her body and soul
20. Excluding women from the clergy
21. Forced celibacy of the clergy
22. The church as the Church of Christ instead of realizing that the Church are truly all Christians that are saved and atoned for by the blood of Christ
23. Not accepting other Christian churches are equally valid and right while declaring that somebody who was raised in a totally different religion can obtain salvation if he was truly seeking after God… (Jesus said “I AM THE WAY” and He meant it)
24. Not opposing the evolution theory
25. Traditions as equally important as God’s Word in the Bible
26. Not acknowledging that salvation is only by the pure grace of God
27. Not acknowledging the absolute inerrant Word of God as manifested in the Bible

Well those would be some…
I would turn back to the church if these things weren’t there… These were the reasons for me turning away in the first place… Without these I could reconcile with the church without conflicting with my conscience…
Thanks you for asking and reading through this…

In Him,
Janet

Such a plethora of grievous misunderstandings of what the Catholic faith believes and teaches it a sad testimony to a lack of proper catechesis by the Church and your parents. I suspect that there are many such who have fallen away from the faith because they never learned it in the first place. I know, the same thing happened to me.

 

[SteveGC]

Such a plethora of grievous misunderstandings of what the Catholic faith believes and teaches it a sad testimony to a lack of proper catechesis by the Church and your parents. I suspect that there are many such who have fallen away from the faith because they never learned it in the first place. I know, the same thing happened to me.

Hi guan. You know, I’d love to read a long thread or two about this very subject. Perhaps there are some out there - I’m not sure what keywords to use in a search. I think this sub-subject is sufficiently geared toward this thread, so I’ll go ahead and expand on this thought…

Specifically, I’m interested in what forces were at play before our modern Catholic evangelical outreach movements (EWTN, Catholic Answers, Internet apologetics, Notable convert testimonies, publications and books) which failed to meet the catechetical needs of so many former Catholics.

I do not suggest that the catechumens themselves were free from blame in this exodus away from The Church; certainly an attraction toward individualism, pride and apathy played a role. But some elements within The Church, it seems to me, also failed to ensure proper, ongoing formation - even for those genuinely interested in learning.

My assumption has been that the crux of this problem centered around the “free love” movements of the 60s and 70s. It’s as if The Church was unprepared for this new age of “me”, my pleasures, and relativism. Not that I would expect The Church to have anticipated it. And I think it might even go beyond the darker forces of societal worldliness.

For example, I always hear stories from ex-Catholics about how CCD taught them zilch. As a recent convert, I do not know the core structure of CCD, but I would assume it varied widely by diocese. I also hear consistent stories about the poor examples of professed Catholics, and how they truly believed they could work their way to heaven without genuine faith. And how they really did not know Scripture, despite hearing it consistently at every Mass.

I do know that lukewarm Catholics who were trying to find their faith, found nothing but rigid obligations in The Church, and conversely, found love, companionship and genuine outward caring in evangelical ecclesial communities. I know this has something to do with misunderstanding the intent of Mass, and a mistaken attempt to compare it to an evangelical “service”.

Anyone else who’s “been there” want to weigh in on what has gone wrong?

Thanks…

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for the responses, Jon.

Much more to be sorted out I suppose, but thanks for illuminating just how out-of-proportion modern Bible-only’s have distorted the SS argument.

One last question…why did Luther even call this concept Sola Scriptura, if in fact, he emphasized the role the church has in interpreting Scripture? Doesn’t that emphasis, by itself, suggest that the Scriptures cannot stand on their own (sola)?

God Bless

I don’t think so, Steve. If we consider what SS really means, a final norm not meant to exclude Tradition so long as it doesn’t contradict, and that scripture is the sole final norm for faith and doctrine. Actually, for me, a better understanding of SS, along with a better understanding of Catholic teachings, has given me more freedom to further explore and evaluate mariology, recent views of purgatory, and other early church teachings and piety not always practiced by Lutheranism.

Jon

 

[w_stewart]

I love your ‘Latin’ addition at the bottom of your thread. Especially the ‘ego’ part. Your response ‘That is debatable, even doubtful’, tells me that you are not a Christian. You have in effect ‘nullified’ the whole reason why Christ was sent to earth. You have made yourself a judge of God’s teachings, and taken away the gift that He has promised to all of mankind. The promise of redemption, is a promise to everyone. This is very clear, in the scripture.

Thorwald Johansen

If being a Catholic who strictly follows the Body of Christ’s teaching, that is “outside of the Church there is no salvation” qualifies me a not Christian in your OWN standard, so what? What it is to me if you consider me a non-Christian?

Christ founded His Church to continue the work of salvation for all humanity. Yes, the promise of salvation is given to everyone but everyone must belong to the Body of Christ, the Church. Those who reject His Body have no chance to be saved.

 

[Cinette]

Good.

Not entirely true. This is not something Luther “made up” in a vacuum.

The Book of Concord contains the Confessional writings, but noone that I know of claims that our church is the real church, as you put it, but we certainly consider ourselves part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

Well, the short answer is he had no choice, as he was excommunicated, after he tried to do it internally (and we can discuss whether he did it poorly, and if the papacy did a poor job of listening to him). But the serious answer is it bothers the heck out of me, and it should all Lutherans and Catholics that we are separated from each other. There is nothing more disturbing to me than to notice Lutherans who are comfortable with this separation. We are a reformation church, not protestant, and our constant goal should be reunification.

Jon

Dear Jon -

As I read your response I felt a profound sadness and tears swelled in my eyes. Yes, we should be united - it would be right and good.

We should continue to pray for reunitication.

God bless you
Cinette

 

[w_stewart]

Sheesh…tell us how you really feel.

I feel awesome.

 

[Cinette]

Such a plethora of grievous misunderstandings of what the Catholic faith believes and teaches it a sad testimony to a lack of proper catechesis by the Church and your parents. I suspect that there are many such who have fallen away from the faith because they never learned it in the first place. I know, the same thing happened to me.

And to me as well. Add to that my getting caught up in the secular world - I didn’t make a conscious choice, I allowed myself to drift because I had no firm base to begin with.

God bless
Cinette

 

[bobzills]

Am observat ca tinerii fug de toate bisericile in ultima vreme.

Nu stiu daca tineri se indeparteaza de biserica pentru ca cind am fost la manastirea Simbata de Sus, am vazut multi tineri si studenti adunati in jurul unui calugar orb care le dedea sfaturi.

 

[benedictus2]

Believe what you will. I simply follow what little scripture is left for us to follow. I have seen what I have seen. When I have a problem with the understanding of scripture, I go to God for wisdom…not man.

The Trinity and the Godhead consists of four figures, not three, as all of Christianity believes. I have been in their presence. I have seen Jesus Christ and His Father, the Lord God Almighty. I could not see The Father or The Holy Ghost, but was made aware of their presence.

The Trinity is The Father, The Son (The Word) and The Holy Ghost. The Son (The Lord God Almighty) created His redeemer (The Lord of Hosts), before creating all else. This is why Jesus glorified His Father rather than Himself. Jesus was created as the first Son of God.

What an absolute load of rubbish (for want of a milder word).!!!

Whoever revealed this to you is not God. You were in deep and meaningfull conversation with the devil himself!!!

Jesus WAS NOT CREATED. He is ONE IN BEING with the Father.

Whatever revelation you received you received from the devil and there is no other way about that. You are a heretic even according to protestant tradition.

**If Jesus was created by the Father then Jesus is not God **or is that a logic that eludes you. And furthermore, THE SON DID NOT CREATE THE LORD OF HOSTS.

Since your “revelation” is so contrary to Christian belief, then God could not have revealed that to you. Only the devil could have given you such visions and it has got you in its grips that is why you cannot even see the lie of what you have been shown.

The angels came second (as sons of God), followed by Adam (son of God) and Eve (daughter of God). If you note, Eve was created by God, but ‘begotten’ of Adam (Adam’s rib). Isaiah chpt 43 and 44:6, Rev 1:6 and Rev chpt 4 & 5, backs this up. Jesus Christ was created in the ‘express image’ of The Lord God Almighty. This includes His Father’s Word. This is why He is The Word in the flesh, as Son of Man. The writings/teachings found in the N/T contain errors. Jesus Christ has ‘replaced’ His Father, The Lord God Almighty…our creator…our God…our Father.

The above has been taught to me by God, Himself.

NO. NYET. NEIN. This was taught to you by satan and you swallowed it hook line and sinker.

He called His Word, “broken” and asked me if I would ‘fix’ this broken Word. I said that I would. He asked me if I thought that I could handle it. I told Him, “Yes.” This is what I am now doing. I asked Him ‘who or what I was’. He simply told me, that ‘I am who I am’. I have been asked to leave many churches. I have found not one person who believes what I have told them. I guess that this is the way that it is supposed to be. I am only doing what I have been asked to do.

Getting cookier and cookier by the second.

YOU ARE A FOLLOWER OF SATAN!

Every single sentence of your post is a proof of that.

In Jesus’ name,

You are not worthy to pronounce His name.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t agree with you. There seems to be a great deal of effort spent on needless ‘fringes’, rather than on the ‘core’ of the Christian faith. I believe that many are perishing because not enough effort is being spent on ‘feeding His sheep’.

What are the “needless” fringes and what is the “core” of the Christian faith?

I agree though that more could be done as regards “feeding” His sheep though I doubt very much that we mean the same thing by “feeding”.

I find that a lot Catholics are terribly under catechized and that is why they leave the Church; because they know zilch about her. So yes, I would like to see more catechism happening in the parishes

**You are measuring Protestantism with the same brush as Protestants are measuring Catholicism…by individual memberships. The actions of specific persons or groups, cannot take away from the validity of what the Protestant religion was supposed to represent. **

First off, you cannot even speak about the protestant religion because there is no one protestant religion as such. There are however around 30,000 denominations with differing views and interpretations of Scripture. That division in itself speaks loudly about the lie that is inherent in the two main pillars of Protestantism: Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura . This is what brought about the ever increasing fracturing of Protestantism.

Besides, as I have said in a previous post, you cannot even speak for Protestantism because you cannot even called yourself Chrisitan since you believe that Jesus Christ was a created being.

 

[guanophore]

I’ve read the following and invite you to gainsay if you can its import that we [those God hath chosen for Himself, His Elect, His sheep] have been given a Spirit of Truth. The problem is not with God’s word, “every word of God is pure”. The problem is that some have wrested the scripture to their destruction. And how is that done?: By adding to and subtracting from what God has said; by making it up as you go: e.g. making Peter the rock when it is clear from every scripture concerning “rock” that rock refers to GOD; making the pope the arbiter of truth when the Holy Spirit is the guide of the Church; making a sacerdotal system via the ministration of priests the means of grace when it is clear biblically that grace is always a gift of God infused into us not by ritualistic practices but by faith – which in itself IS “the work of God” John 6… etc, etc, etc.

Anyway, here’s the promise from the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ which proves that any member of His flock can understand what He says and means without mediation from the pope and his curial assistants.

JOHN 14:16-18,26 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

That’s good enough for me. The pope and his followers need to read the Bible and stop pretending to stand in the place of the Lord.

I assure you, the Pope reads the Bible. He understands it differently than you because he has received the teaching of the Apostles. Those who are separated from this teaching do not read with the world view of those who wrote the Scripture, so it seems to mean something different than what the Apostles actually taught.

Check it out: Matthew 28:18 “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ALL power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”
What part of “ALL” is left out or over for the pope et al to claim for themselves?

The Pope does not “claim for himself” any power. In fact, when he is elected, he enters a room called the chamber of tears. His life is not his, but he belongs to God. This is true of all the ordained, but the burden is much greater for the Bishops. Jesus did not give the Apostles “left over” power, but the same power with which He was given by the Father.

 

[benedictus2]

I’ve read the following and invite you to gainsay if you can its import that we [those God hath chosen for Himself, His Elect, His sheep] have been given a Spirit of Truth. The problem is not with God’s word, “every word of God is pure”. The problem is that some have wrested the scripture to their destruction. And how is that done?: By adding to and subtracting from what God has said; by making it up as you go: e.g. making Peter the rock when it is clear from every scripture concerning “rock” that rock refers to GOD;

2J1V3, here is an explanation of why in Matthew 16, the rock means Peter.

Matthew 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

"Now Jesus speaks Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word for rock is kepha.

In this verse, Jesus is saying: “You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church”. Translated to English it becomes “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.”

It is very clear here that Simon IS THE ROCK. And, though you may not want to accept it IT IS CHRIST HIMSELF WHO SAYS SO.

So where did we get “Peter” from? Well, in Greek things have gender. So since Matthew was written in Greek, they had to render ''petra" (which is the greek word for rock but which is a female name) into “Peter” because they cannot give Simon a female name.

making the pope the arbiter of truth when the Holy Spirit is the guide of the Church;

This statement stems from Ignorance. The Church does not make the Pope the arbiter Truth because as you so correctly put it, the Holy Spirit is the guide of the Church.

What Papal infallibility means is that the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church will not teach error in matters of faith amd morals precisely because they will be guided by the Holy Spirit when they make doctrinal pronouncement.

And how do we know that for a fact? Because Jesus Himself said so. That is the promise that He gave to His Church - that the gates of hell will not prevail. If the Church were to have taught error then that means the gates of hell has prevailed. Which makes Christ a liar. And since we know He is not a liar, and that He keeps His promise, we therefore believe that the Church will always teach Truth.

making a sacerdotal system via the ministration of priests the means of grace when it is clear biblically that grace is always a gift of God infused into us not by ritualistic practices but by faith – which in itself IS “the work of God” John 6… etc, etc, etc.

No quarrel with the main tenet of this post. Grace is always a gift of God. But God WILLED to give His grace via the sacraments. So here again, it is not the Church the you have a problem with. It is God. You do not like the way God has WILLED TO GRANT HIS GRACE VIA THE SACRAMENTS.

Anyway, here’s the promise from the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ which proves that any member of His flock can understand what He says and means without mediation from the pope and his curial assistants.

JOHN 14:16-18,26 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Bingo. You got it. But that promise was given in full to His Church.

Now why do I say that?

If the Holy Spirit truly guides everyone who reads the Bible then how come there are over 30,000 protestant denominations with differing interpretations? Even if there is only two, that would be one too many.

So here you can only come up with two possible conclusions.

First: That the Holy Spirit does not know what the Truth is either so He tells one church this and another church that.

Second: That it is not the Holy Spirit who is guiding all these different interprations.

Since the first can’t be true, that leaves only the second as the only probable conclusions.

Besides, who do you think has a vested interest in breaking up the Body of Christ?

 

[benedictus2]

That’s good enough for me. The pope and his followers need to read the Bible and stop pretending to stand in the place of the Lord.

The Pope and his followers know the Bible. You have a long way to learn before you can even come within a smidgen of his brilliance.

You ought to read his book called Jesus of Nazareth and then perhaps you will learn what true exegesis is all about.

Check it out: Matthew 28:18 “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ALL power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”

What part of “ALL” is left out or over for the pope et al to claim for themselves?

Yes. ALL Power is given to Him. And you know what, He CHOSE to share some of that power with His apostles.

The greatest thing that anyone could do is to forgive sins, because only God has the authority to forgive sins. And what did Christ do? He CHOSE / WILLED TO GIVE THIS POWER TO HIS APOSTLES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS.

Jesus says: Receive the Holy Spirit. Whosoever sins you forgive they are forgiven them. Whosoever sins you retain they are retained.

This is Jesus himself talking. Now if you have an issue with that, take it up with Him.

 

[benedictus2]

What IS the Bible?
It is the eternal Word of God. Jesus is that word made flesh.
Listen to Pastor Nelson Turner’s sermon “What the Bible SAYS About Itself” available for free download at:
sites.google.com/site/AV1611Reformation/Home/sermons

Maaan, are you one of those who equate the written word of God with Jesus Christ? The Bible is not Christ. The Etenal Word Spoken of in John is Christ not the Bible. Before the Bible ever was there was Christ.

No adjudication on biblical meaning is really necessary in the same sense that matters of “natural law” can’t be debated in denial of their clear meaning. Everyone “knows” abortion is murder.

Where have you hidden all this time? Don’t you know that NOT everyone knows that abortion is mruder or else you will not have all this kerfuffle over FOCA?

God wrote that into our souls when He created us.

Yes, He did. So how come people still get it so wrong? Because the devil can mislead you in reading your conscience. In the same way it misleads a lot of people about scripture. It is very cunning and know how to twist scripture.
Similarly, we know what His words mean, if He has chosen us to know.

Do you? I just posted a reply to another post of yours where you clearly do not know His word because you do not think that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18.

And the pope or the bishops around him don’t know any better than any elect person just what God’s word says.

Wrong again. As I have just pointed out, YOU don’t know Matthew 16:18 (and who know what other passage you are misinterpreting asell) so obviously the Pope and the Bishops know more than you.

So going by that, does that mean you are not one of the elect?

God puts belief into us; “faith is a gift”. What we believe is not from some committee in Rome.

Neither is ours. We don’t believe some committee Rome. We believe in Christ and in HIS Church.

Psalm 119:89 “For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.”
Proverbs 30:5 “Every word of God is pure…”

Beautiful verses but have absolutely no bearing on the current discussion.

 

[benedictus2]

The apostles did indeed go forth, and start forming groups and congregations, that truly lived up to Christ’s teachings. It is what has happened since, that I protest against. The majority have returned to the days of Noah (all religions). Do you ever watch t.v., or listen to general conversations in a coffee shop, etc.? Tell me that what you see and hear, is righteous. It is the opposite. Many that go to church, will not even bring their Bible with them in public.

Thorwald your ignorance is painful. I go to Church and have never brought the Bible with me but guess what, I hear the Bible proclaimed!

And this is how Christians learned about salvation before the advent of the printng press! And that is for the first 1500 years of Christianity!

When you are in Church you are not supposed to be reading your Bible. The Gospels and all readings are supposed to be proclaimed to you!

At Mass on a Sunday, we have 1 reading from the OT, 1 reading from the Letters, 1 from Psalms and lastly 1 reading from the Gospel.

Can you say that you have as much readings from the Bible in your Sunday service?

If a Catholic went to Mass every day, he/she would have heard the ENTIRE BIBLE proclaimed in a span of three years.

In your Church your pastor probably chooses to preach on passages that he likes. Hard passages are ignored.

Christ, Himself warns us, that if we are ashamed of Him, He will not come forward in our defense on judgement day.

Not bringing your Bible to Church is not synonimous with being ashamed of Christ. That is fundamentalist hogwash.

I am not angry with people. I am angry with how people have been deceived by satan in such a way, that they believe that they, personally, are righteous, but Jesus doesn’t know them. Their ‘works’ tell us the truth.

You will have to include yourself in that category because based on your posts, you have shown yourself to be a pharisee.

 

[benedictus2]

w_stewart:

*They CAN do it all day long OUTSIDE of the Mass. Dancing and shouting are not appropriate during the Mass. *

Mass is no place for ‘hootin and hollerin’. As Catholics, we believe in the Real Presence of the King at the Altar. We can be joyful and solemn at the same time.

I suppose they “hoote and holler” at their Sunday Service because they don’t have the Real Presence of Christ.

I think they will act differently if Jesus were to appear in their midst.

 

[benedictus2]

Well, the short answer is he had no choice, as he was excommunicated, after he tried to do it internally (and we can discuss whether he did it poorly, and if the papacy did a poor job of listening to him). But the serious answer is it bothers the heck out of me, and it should all Lutherans and Catholics that we are separated from each other. There is nothing more disturbing to me than to notice Lutherans who are comfortable with this separation. We are a reformation church, not protestant, and our constant goal should be reunification.

Jon

The excesses that Luther tried to reform are no longer, yet Lutherans still remain severed from the Church.

And the reason for that is, instead of just protesting against the abuses, Luther came up with a whole new lot of doctrines, mutilating the Bible in the process to suit his own doctrine.

I do believe that he was right to protest about the abuses. But in the end his enormous pride got the better of him. So no reform happened because of him.

In the end reform happened but not because of him although he did help provide the impetous.

There will be no re-unitifcation as long as doctrinal differences exist.

But another kind of re-unification is achievable. One that is done one soul at a time. Fr Neuhaus did it.

 

[w_stewart]

The excesses that Luther tried to reform are no longer, yet Lutherans still remain severed from the Church.

And the reason for that is, instead of just protesting against the abuses, Luther came up with a whole new lot of doctrines, mutilating the Bible in the process to suit his own doctrine.

He not only mutilated the Bible but he crippled the Church as well.

 

[benedictus2]

This is a very interesting post so even if this is not addressed to me I will give my 1 cent worth.

Hi guan. You know, I’d love to read a long thread or two about this very subject. Perhaps there are some out there - I’m not sure what keywords to use in a search. I think this sub-subject is sufficiently geared toward this thread, so I’ll go ahead and expand on this thought…

Specifically, I’m interested in what forces were at play before our modern Catholic evangelical outreach movements (EWTN, Catholic Answers, Internet apologetics, Notable convert testimonies, publications and books) which failed to meet the catechetical needs of so many former Catholics.

I do not suggest that the catechumens themselves were free from blame in this exodus away from The Church; certainly an attraction toward individualism, pride and apathy played a role. But some elements within The Church, it seems to me, also failed to ensure proper, ongoing formation - even for those genuinely interested in learning.

I think that you will find this especially in the decade post VII. There was a lot of uncertainty and in response to the perceived rigidigity the pendulum swung the other way paving the way towards laxity.

My assumption has been that the crux of this problem centered around the “free love” movements of the 60s and 70s. It’s as if The Church was unprepared for this new age of “me”, my pleasures, and relativism. Not that I would expect The Church to have anticipated it. And I think it might even go beyond the darker forces of societal worldliness.

The rise of an erroneous sense of feminism I believe was highly instrumental as well.

For example, I always hear stories from ex-Catholics about how CCD taught them zilch. As a recent convert, I do not know the core structure of CCD, but I would assume it varied widely by diocese. I also hear consistent stories about the poor examples of professed Catholics, and how they truly believed they could work their way to heaven without genuine faith. And how they really did not know Scripture, despite hearing it consistently at every Mass.

And I still get that from some Catholics even priests. I used to attend a Jesuit retreat house who have gone a fair bit into new age. They have now employed a lay woman to be the retreat centre’s director. I attended one of her retreats where she said that abortioin is not wrong. It is no wonder we have a lot of confuse Catholics. Even a priest I know is teaching something contrary to the Catechism.

I do know that lukewarm Catholics who were trying to find their faith, found nothing but rigid obligations in The Church, and conversely, found love, companionship and genuine outward caring in evangelical ecclesial communities. I know this has something to do with misunderstanding the intent of Mass, and a mistaken attempt to compare it to an evangelical “service”.

And this is where the individualism comes in. The Worship of God Almighty is no longer about God but the woship of I/Me/Myself. It is about how good one feels during worship. It is too self-centred. The service becomes self-serving rather than God serving.

That is why “new-age” has steadily crept into the Catholic parishes as well. It is all about how “we” can be pleased, too much emphasis on the “I”.

Of late, I have come to believe that this surge in individualism is a direct result of Protestantism.

Everyone wants miracles. Today’s second reading is very apt.
We preach Christ crucified but it seems no one wants that. They, like the Jews want miracles!