Which is worse or better?

[mikew262]

I’m sorry, but this is one of those ideas that many progressives in the Church not only use to justify defection to other denominations, but to indifferentialism as well. The Holy Spirit, in its duty to bring the Truth, cannot lead one person to one truth and one person to another. It is how the person interprets the working of the Holy Spirit that determines where they go. I sincerely believe that it is the will of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that all should be within the Catholic Church, where we are infallibily told that the fullness of Truth subsists. Why would one then choose a demonination that is short of this? Not because the Holy Spirit leads them thus, but because ignorance and pride clouds His message.

Yes, but everybody claims the HS is leading them to the right place. You to the Catholic Church, somebody else to another church.

See the issue. You are right, the HS would not (I don’t think) lead people to different places, the question what is the right place?

 

[Sandi]

Live your life in accordance with the light God gives you, and trust to His mercy and forgiveness.

 

[Sixtus]

Which is worse a Catholic who has some misgivings/non-acceptance about some Church teachings, but wants to remain a Catholic, or one who has changed to another Christian denomination where that person can more readily accept their teachings?

I am aware of my own family to whom this has happened.

My cousin moved to another town, had a major altercation with the new priest and simply stopped being Catholic. By the time she died, she was well integrated and very active in the Church of England church where she used to attend.

The minister told me that when she was chronically sick, he took her Holy Communion which gave her consolation. She told him that leaving Catholicism was not difficult, but finding a Church of England Church which was so devoted to the Eucharist is much more difficult to find!!!

My family are Catholic through and through. We were all had a convent education. I just cannot believe she did that. But obviously it was acceptable to her conscience else she would not have done it.

Prior to reading some of these threads I would have said ‘it is better to remain Catholic as we believe it is the true Church of Christ’. But, seeing some of the criticism I receive, I do not think that arguement is now valid. A Church of England Minister friend of mine [who also happen to be very anti-Catholic] has told me 'there would always be place for me in his congregation.

But, I do not think I will be joining him. I am just too Roman Catholic and too dedicated to the Blessed Sacrament for that.

 

[Orionthehunter]

The whole truth, known only truly to God? No, probably not. Your 2nd part of the question, I think you are trying to guide me into the old moral relativism argument. Been there, done that, seen that trap before. BTW, I assume the 2nd part of that question applies to Catholics as well? Do you think you are totally correct? If so, how do you know?

And I assume you are meaning the Catholic Church. If you were a Methodist, you’d be meaning yours and so on. If you allow yourself to think outside of the box for a minute, it can be mind numbing. Perhaps, Christ mean’t the Christian Church and man (with possibly Satan at his side) has done his best over the many years to split it up into many pieces.

I’m not saying the Catholic Church is wrong, but I’m not saying the others have it wrong either. I’m not qualified to make that judgement.

Mike, I bolded some words again as they demonstrate a mindset. I/you or right/wrong demonstrate that you think that it is possible to find the Truth within ourselves as we “interpret” what we are told/taught by God via Scripture, etc.

This is not the case. Christ was so clear when He said specifically to the Apostles only “I won’t leave you alone but will send you the Spirit to guide you” or “You will only understand when you recieve the Spirit which will come after me” or “You understand because I’ve given you ears to hear”. I am paraphrasing as I don’t have time to find the exact Scripture.

The point is that there is a special charism given to the Church’s Magisterium. It is what it is. I don’t claim to know what is right or wrong. But Christ said that He would give the Church special Counsel and that I am to trust Him. It is in this submission and obedience that I can rightly and humbly place myself relative to God. When I use words like I/you and right/wrong, I am asserting I have a charism that wasn’t promised to me.

 

[fix]

The whole truth, known only truly to God? No, probably not.

No, I mean the truth He revealed to mankind. Do you think He would reveal Himself and then leave it up to us to stumble around without having an external way to know what is true and what is false?

Your 2nd part of the question, I think you are trying to guide me into the old moral relativism argument. Been there, done that, seen that trap before. BTW, I assume the 2nd part of that question applies to Catholics as well? Do you think you are totally correct? If so, how do you know?

For one thing the Church can trace Her roots back to Christ. Do you accept Christ was telling the truth when He gave the keys to Peter?

 

[mikew262]

No, I mean the truth He revealed to mankind. Do you think He would reveal Himself and then leave it up to us to stumble around without having an external way to know what is true and what is false?

For one thing the Church can trace Her roots back to Christ. Do you accept Christ was telling the truth when He gave the keys to Peter?

The Christian faith is stumbling around. Look at all the Christian denominations out there.

Yes, I accept that he gave Peter the keys, but if you look at the many Popes since then, some were appointed by Kings, some bought their way in, at times we had several Popes at the same time. Granted, this was several centuries ago, but you have to admit, direct succession did get a little gray at times.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Christian faith is stumbling around. Look at all the Christian denominations out there. No, the Christian faith has not stumbled; people who cannot accept it have started their own denominations, abjured it completely or remained members “in name” while fighting it ‘in their conscience’ etc.–but no matter how you slice it, it is not Faith which has failed, but people.

Yes, I accept that he gave Peter the keys, but if you look at the many Popes since then, some were appointed by Kings, some bought their way in, at times we had several Popes at the same time. Granted, this was several centuries ago, but you have to admit, direct succession did get a little gray at times.

I sense a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” with this argument, I believe. IOW, whether a given Pope (or anyone or anything else) was ‘appointed’, or whether there has been a ‘question’ by some counterclaimant has absolutely **nothing **to do with the whole question of apostolic succession. It appears to me that you, like so many of my generation, have been so thoroughly conditioned in ‘questioning and testing’ that you just can’t stop! It is, after all, the logical extension of such ‘education’, as seldom if ever can one take anything at all as ‘proven’ by such methods. “We weren’t there so how do we know?” “We can’t be sure that ‘something’ didn’t corrupt the message”. The triumph of Satan is that he can take contemporary humanity, which for the most part is not only literate but relatively free from want, and with access to more knowledge of their faith, so more easily available than the world has yet seen. . .and so blind them that they don’t even bother to try to use their minds but are instead acting like children who, wandering around in a bright clear light, yet pretend that, because they have covered their eyes, that all about them is dark.
And the worst of this is that not only do they not see how they have been duped, they feel that those who attempt to take their hands from their eyes and help them are the ones who are doing the blinding! They are so paralyzed at the thought of having to actually make **a real decision ** (because, of course, they will never be able to consider that they have enough ‘information’ to make the ‘right’ decision!) that they will cling like limpets to the ‘comforting’ blindness that, “since we can’t really know for sure we really don’t have to say or do anything ourselves because God couldn’t possibly expect us to act without full knowledge”. (Ignoring that God OTOH most certainly expects us to do just that. Imagine if Abraham had insisted on knowing just exactly how he was going to have ‘endless descendants’ when God told him to sacrifice Isaac, and refused to obey until he had ‘full knowledge’ of the consequences, for example).

 

[FCEGM]

I sense a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” with this argument, I believe. IOW, whether a given Pope (or anyone or anything else) was ‘appointed’, or whether there has been a ‘question’ by some counterclaimant has absolutely **nothing **to do with the whole question of apostolic succession. It appears to me that you, like so many of my generation, have been so thoroughly conditioned in ‘questioning and testing’ that you just can’t stop! It is, after all, the logical extension of such ‘education’, as seldom if ever can one take anything at all as ‘proven’ by such methods. “We weren’t there so how do we know?” “We can’t be sure that ‘something’ didn’t corrupt the message”. The triumph of Satan is that he can take contemporary humanity, which for the most part is not only literate but relatively free from want, and with access to more knowledge of their faith, so more easily available than the world has yet seen. . .and so blind them that they don’t even bother to try to use their minds but are instead acting like children who, wandering around in a bright clear light, yet pretend that, because they have covered their eyes, that all about them is dark.
And the worst of this is that not only do they not see how they have been duped, they feel that those who attempt to take their hands from their eyes and help them are the ones who are doing the blinding! They are so paralyzed at the thought of having to actually make **a real decision ** (because, of course, they will never be able to consider that they have enough ‘information’ to make the ‘right’ decision!) that they will cling like limpets to the ‘comforting’ blindness that, “since we can’t really know for sure we really don’t have to say or do anything ourselves because God couldn’t possibly expect us to act without full knowledge”. (Ignoring that God OTOH most certainly expects us to do just that. Imagine if Abraham had insisted on knowing just exactly how he was going to have ‘endless descendants’ when God told him to sacrifice Isaac, and refused to obey until he had ‘full knowledge’ of the consequences, for example).

:yup: :clapping: :yup: :clapping:

 

[mikew262]

I sense a “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” with this argument, I believe. IOW, whether a given Pope (or anyone or anything else) was ‘appointed’, or whether there has been a ‘question’ by some counterclaimant has absolutely **nothing **to do with the whole question of apostolic succession. It appears to me that you, like so many of my generation, have been so thoroughly conditioned in ‘questioning and testing’ that you just can’t stop! It is, after all, the logical extension of such ‘education’, as seldom if ever can one take anything at all as ‘proven’ by such methods. “We weren’t there so how do we know?” “We can’t be sure that ‘something’ didn’t corrupt the message”. The triumph of Satan is that he can take contemporary humanity, which for the most part is not only literate but relatively free from want, and with access to more knowledge of their faith, so more easily available than the world has yet seen. . .and so blind them that they don’t even bother to try to use their minds but are instead acting like children who, wandering around in a bright clear light, yet pretend that, because they have covered their eyes, that all about them is dark.
And the worst of this is that not only do they not see how they have been duped, they feel that those who attempt to take their hands from their eyes and help them are the ones who are doing the blinding! They are so paralyzed at the thought of having to actually make **a real decision ** (because, of course, they will never be able to consider that they have enough ‘information’ to make the ‘right’ decision!) that they will cling like limpets to the ‘comforting’ blindness that, “since we can’t really know for sure we really don’t have to say or do anything ourselves because God couldn’t possibly expect us to act without full knowledge”. (Ignoring that God OTOH most certainly expects us to do just that. Imagine if Abraham had insisted on knowing just exactly how he was going to have ‘endless descendants’ when God told him to sacrifice Isaac, and refused to obey until he had ‘full knowledge’ of the consequences, for example).

Many folks like you and others are afflicted with “blind” faith, which isn’t bad per say, but you accept what is fed you without ever questioning anything. I say questioning, not defying, there is a difference.

I and many others I think, on the other hand, have faith with a little common sense mixed in. IOW, take Scripture for example, much of it may not be historically accurate, but the message that God is trying to convey is there (common sense). With the Popes, some were not sterling examples of what Popes should be, some we’re not sure were even legitimate, which means apostolic succession could’ve been at times temporaily broken, that is entirely believable (common sense). However, from Peter to now, overall, with possibly some hiccups, apostolic succession is intact. No argument.

I could go and on with other examples, but I think I’ve made my point (whether you think so or not).

 

[setter]

Many folks like you and others are afflicted with “blind” faith, which isn’t bad per say, but you accept what is fed you without ever questioning anything. I say questioning, not defying, there is a difference.

I and many others I think, on the other hand, have faith with a little common sense mixed in.

 

[FCEGM]

Many folks like you and others are afflicted with “blind” faith, which isn’t bad per say, but you accept what is fed you without ever questioning anything. I say questioning, not defying, there is a difference.

(Quoting myself again )

Piffle.

Discovering truth does not require one to be original or inventive, but receptive to reality. To learn from the knowledge of others is called wise, especially for the young who in their pride refuse to consider the truths others have discovered before them. Some, though, prefer to linger under this adolescent stance of independent thinking, rather than openness to the Truth found in the Tradition, especially in matters of religion.

"There is a demand for reckless originality of thought, and a sparkling plausibility of argument. . .a demand for crude theory and unsound philosophy, rather than none at all. It is a sort of repetition of the “Quid nove? (what’s new) of the aeropagus, and it must have an answer,” John Cardinal Newman

.

 

[fix]

Many folks like you and others are afflicted with “blind” faith, which isn’t bad per say, but you accept what is fed you without ever questioning anything. I say questioning, not defying, there is a difference.

It is not simply a blind faith. I also reject the assertion folks like us never question. I, humbly, say that it is the exact opposite.

To come to the understanding that God cannot deceive or be deceived and that He is the authority that guides the Church requires the gift of faith and reason. We use them both.

 

[mikew262]

It is not simply a blind faith. I also reject the assertion folks like us never question. I, humbly, say that it is the exact opposite.

To come to the understanding that God cannot deceive or be deceived and that He is the authority that guides the Church requires the gift of faith and reason. We use them both.

Reason, along with scripture and tradition. The 3 pillars of the Episcopal Church. Uh, oh!

I contend that the most devout Catholics hardly ever question, they are almost in total “receive” mode. Again, thats not bad, just reality.

 

[mikew262]

(Quoting myself again )

Receptive to reality? You bet! This is the reason why I feel the way I feel. Adolescent? Not hardly (or Piffle! using your words)

 

[fix]

Reason, along with scripture and tradition. The 3 pillars of the Episcopal Church. Uh, oh!

I contend that the most devout Catholics hardly ever question, they are almost in total “receive” mode. Again, thats not bad, just reality.

I was thinking along these lines:

1. There is thus no reason for competition of any kind between reason and faith: each contains the other, and each has its own scope for action…

THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I contend that the most devout Catholics hardly ever question, they are almost in total “receive” mode. Again, thats not bad, just reality

No, with respect, that’s your ‘perception’.

And it isn’t ‘reality’ either.

You see, I ‘question’ a lot of things; that’s how I learned about my Catholic faith, as well as learning how to read, write, do math, play the piano, etc.

But I think that what you mean by ‘question’ pretty much presupposes "I think X, the Church teaches Y–full stop. No way am I going to change my mind to Y! Either the Church comes around to teaching Y–in which case I will then fully embrace the church–or I’ll simply accept whatever the Church teaches that I agree with, and ‘reserve’ to myself the right to think X on this subject. And I’ll call myself an intelligent questioner who is not led by ‘blind faith’ and whose integrity in intellectual matters is never to be broken!

Whereas what I mean by question encompasses the idea that if in my questioning I wind up with thinking X, and the Church teaching Y, I will ask myself why I think that my X is right and the Church’s Y is wrong. I will pray to God for guidance. And then, even if I still can’t understand why She teaches Y, I will submit that my X must be wrong and the Y must be right.

I’ll give some examples. I used to think that contraception was no big deal. But I decided that I was going to explore church teaching on the subject. I learned that the Church teaches contraception is wrong. So I moved to thinking that, well it was wrong -but only for Catholics, because I still thought that there might be some way that it could be all right for those who ‘didn’t know’. But the more I considered this, the more I realized that there is no way that something can be “okay” for some but not for others; truth is always truth.

By questioning I was led to the Truth. Now that I know the truth on contraception I don’t have to question the teaching anymore–I have found the answer. If I had stopped before I found “the Truth”–if I had stopped way back when I thought that “I” had found “truth” in my original thinking–I’d have been stuck with untruth. If I had ‘stuck to my guns’ thinking that my way was ‘the truth’, I’d not only still be questioning (meaning, still determined to think that I was right and the church wrong), I’d be in a position to lead others astray (hey, she’s a Catholic and she believes contraception is ok!), and I probably wouldn’t be advancing in other areas of my spiritual life either.

This isn’t ‘blind faith’ but rather loving and trusting obedience through faith.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I contend that the most devout Catholics hardly ever question, they are almost in total “receive” mode. Again, thats not bad, just reality.

There isn’t anything the Church teaches that I either haven’t or are questioning/probing. You statement is totally inaccurate. In fact it is an oxymoron. To be devout requires one to probe and question. It is necessary for understanding.

**Many folks like you **and others are afflicted with “blind” faith, which isn’t bad per say, but you accept what is fed you without ever questioning anything. I say questioning, not defying, there is a difference.

I and many others I think, on the other hand, have faith with a little common sense mixed in. IOW, take Scripture for example, much of it may not be historically accurate, but the message that God is trying to convey is there (common sense). With the Popes, some were not sterling examples of what Popes should be, some we’re not sure were even legitimate, which means apostolic succession could’ve been at times temporaily broken, that is entirely believable (common sense). However, from Peter to now, overall, with possibly some hiccups, apostolic succession is intact. No argument.

I could go and on with other examples, but** I think I’ve made my point (whether you think so or not)**.

Many folks like you: See my post above. This is a backhanded slap that is so far from the truth to be slanderous.

Regarding “making your point”, you actually betrayed your misunderstanding of Apostolic Succession. We just got done with a period where there was no Pope (between the death of JPII and installation of BXVI). BXVI was already an ordained Bishop with Apostolic Succession. He was just installed as the Bishop of Rome. Apostolic Succession is about a Bishop being ordained by the laying of hands by previously ordained Bishops. There has been no “hiccups.”

 

[fix]

By questioning I was led to the Truth. Now that I know the truth on contraception I don’t have to question the teaching anymore–I have found the answer.

As has been said many times here our culture says to us go and seek the truth. That is considered very enlightened and progressive. However, if one finds the truth they are often seen as simple minded, intolerant, prejudiced, and unable to" think outside the box".

So seek the truth, but apparently do not find it.

 

[mikew262]

There isn’t anything the Church teaches that I either haven’t or are questioning/probing. You statement is totally inaccurate. In fact it is an oxymoron. To be devout requires one to probe and question. It is necessary for understanding.

Many folks like you: See my post above. This is a backhanded slap that is so far from the truth to be slanderous.

Regarding “making your point”, you actually betrayed your misunderstanding of Apostolic Succession. We just got done with a period where there was no Pope (between the death of JPII and installation of BXVI). BXVI was already an ordained Bishop with Apostolic Succession. He was just installed as the Bishop of Rome. Apostolic Succession is about a Bishop being ordained by the laying of hands by previously ordained Bishops. There has been no “hiccups.”

I mean’t no offense, but I stand by my statement. BTW, I wasn’t slandering anybody, just offering my opinion on something, so let’s not be overly dramatic. By questioning, I don’t mean seeking more knowledge about certain Church doctrines or teachings, I mean looking at a certain teaching and maybe questioning it’s validity or looking at certain scripture and maybe interpreting it differently than what the Church says.

I stand corrected on Apostolic Succession. After further checking, your definition is correct. :bowdown2:

 

[mikew262]

As has been said many times here our culture says to us go and seek the truth. That is considered very enlightened and progressive. However, if one finds the truth they are often seen as simple minded, intolerant, prejudiced, and unable to" think outside the box".

So seek the truth, but apparently do not find it.

Oh Fix, quit feeling sorry for yourself. So I and others dare say or think that Christ may exist outside the Catholic Church, I know you feel that’s not possible. I and others feel differently and we challenge you on that. Deal with it! Lord knows, we get enough grief from you and some others on this forum for thinking the way we do.

Everybody is seeking the Truth. Some feel they have found it in the Catholic Church, some in the Baptist Church, some in the Lutheran Church and so on, and many are still searching.

Remember, where 2 or more gather in my name, I (Christ) will be there. I don’t remember that passage mentioning a Catholic Church only.