C
CMatt25
Guest
I’m not laughing about the comment someone said or that it is an infraction.
- Status
C
CMatt25
Guest
Bri, honestly I never knew it to be the way it is to the degree it is today. I can’t say for certain but sometimes I think the abortion issue might have something to do with over the course of time having driven many Amercican Catholics to generally more conservative views including the fiscal one you mention and such emphasis on solely private charity. I’ve seen it within not all but some of my own family. All I know is it has turned me off. Peace.
C
CMatt25
Guest
David was a conservative and I, an actual John, chose David as my Confirmation name? :bigyikes: What on earth was I thinking at that young age? Oh I remember now. The Goliath story. Whew. You had me worried there for a moment Alan about what I had done. Please tell me Matt isn’t conservative.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Well yes I agree they can question, PR. The answer they get might be another story. But as far as use of reason, sure PR, and then what happens when my reason differs from your reasoning?
C
CMatt25
Guest
Actually a former bishop of mine once told me what Ed said. There are practicing Catholics and non practicing Catholics. And that being practicing does not exclude the possibility of sin in one’s life. There was none of this telling a Catholic they can not consider themselves a Catholic, or putting quotation marks around the word, Catholic, or the use of acronyms such as CINOs like I’ve known to be the case here on “Catholic Answers”.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Nor am I, nor did I. There was no laughter icon or language in my post.
I have no idea where your comment about “laughing” belongs. It sounds like a non-sequitor to me.
C
CMatt25
Guest
But possibly this website’s supposedly “judgmental” (without the first ‘e’) members are “vastly” (or slightly) more educated.
That gets old even with the wink. Jesus taught to humble ourselves like a child.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Exactly. CAF is not the Catholic Church. I remember reading Fr Serpa in a post once explaining CA is a business or as another poster said on this thread, an organization. It’s one of the reasons the name it gave itself has come to trouble me. People might believe they are getting Catholic Church answers on everything.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
And several things get even older:
~quoting posts out of context – not just outside of the full post, but to which post they respond. Translation: the poster to which I responded engaged in some sweeping, bloated generalizations about what Jesus supposedly “stood for.” It’s a common overstatement that is often used, in error, to represent a Christianity & Catholicism which is a distorted simplification of His message, and messages, plural. I further developed that in the post in question.
Translation #2: Jesus’ ministry is often reduced to a kind of elementary – i.e., incomplete-- single message, rather than a complex unity of many messages. Jesus is both Love and Truth, in Unity. (That is also an alternate definition of the Trinity.) Truth does not oppose Love, but each complements the other. Love is only in the context of truth, and this He also made abundantly clear, but of course only to those interested in receiving and applying that entire dynamic which He illustrated with his sermons, sayings, parables, miracles, and life. God is not “changed” by those who would distort His Being as “more” or “only” Love or Truth.
~the failure to appreciate ironic humor. Something that was not ironic would have used (as you just did, a rolled-yes icon). Mine was not a put down; yours, however, clearly is (toward me). (Indeed, CMatt, humbling oneself like a child applies to all Christians, not just to those with whom you so frequently disagree and categorize negatively, and apparently therefore feel free to hurt, including whether that hurt is very warranted or edifying. Hmmm.)
~the assumption that there are “categories” of Christians or Catholics, and that their particular posts on CAF, especially individually, are indicators of their spirituality or state of mind. (That we may assume that because they are clear and consistent about Church teaching, they “therefore” judge other Catholics rashly, or that they categorize others themselves, or that they fail in charity.) None of that can be concluded from a discussion forum, unless such a poster specifically states that he or she feels capable and authorized to make such illegitimate judgments about spiritual conditions which other posters have not revealed.
~the tendency to categorize falls equally to those on CAF with a particular viewpoint about what is and is not “Christian,” and how that (in their minds) is exclusively equated to “love” and in a particular definition of “love.” (Small “l”)
Example: 'Wait: You’re not echoing these particular Talking Points of "The (political and/or Catholic) “left”? Therefore, you must be on the “hard right.” (Not necessarily true at all.) “And” (“therefore”) you must be “less loving” than The Left.] It happens on most of the CAF fora, and no less so than on this very thread, on this very page.
Really, really old.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
If they’re going to the main page of the website, they are getting Catholic Church answers on the topics presented. Unfortunately, too many who are seeking definitive answers (such as to questions about settled doctrine) do not avail themselves of objective sources, whether on the home page of C.A. or whether through other Church documents. It’s a modern disease that so many seek authority from their peers, including anonymous & uninformed peers, rather than from those with authority. It’s also a modern disease (borrowed from contemporary “journalism”) that too often equates opinion with fact. Catholic doctrine is not subjective, & not modified by opinion about its objective content, even though there can be many emotional reactions to that doctrine, which can then be discussed with equal validity.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, if it’s an opinion, then we agree to disagree. Otherwise, the discussion goes something like this:
“Brides should wear white!”
“No! Brides in China wear red! I think Brides look fabulous in red!”
“No, white!”
“No, red!”
:whacky: :whacky: :whacky:
But if it’s a truth that we’re disagreeing upon, then we continue to hash it out until the one who believes a falsehood comes to understand the truth.
“Catholics believe Mary is a goddess!”
“No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do. You kneel before her statue.”
“Kneeling doesn’t mean that we believe the statue is alive and a deity.”
etc etc etc.
Until the wrong person gets it and says, “Oh, I guess I was taught incorrectly.”
P
PRmerger
Guest
Hear, hear! :clapping:
Z
Zosimus41
Guest
Ed then you cant vote for Obama
T
TEPO
Guest
Well, I agree -saying CINO to someone based on their social or political ideals is absurd, since these are prudential judgements…
But saying CINO when a Catholic is in dissent can be a form of charity in some instances.
T
TEPO
Guest
I’ve been Reading Eds posts for years… I have a feeling that’s probably not something on his to do list.
.
C
CMatt25
Guest
No where did I say you were nor that you did.
Nor am I, nor did I. There was no laughter icon or language in my post.
I have no idea where your comment about “laughing” belongs. It sounds like a non-sequitor to me.
G
Gaber
Guest
I don’t have to have it both ways, That’s a diversion. I can say “reportedly” and that can include belief or disbelief. Unless you are like the lady who wouldn’t learn a foreign tongue because “God writ the Bible in English and that’s good enough for me!” And if I say something about Jesus from the Scriptures and disagree, even then we are talking, most likely, about something you believe or are influenced by as faith. So it is still part of the discussion as stands should that occur.
And what do you know about Him? Ever play “telephone?” Yes, you can claim inspration, tradition, and divine guidance, but even a pure “message” from “the other side” has to go through the filter of interpretation of the mind(s) translating it from the non verbal. and according to their less than Jesus like understandings. We could write a book on just that.
And how would I, claiming not to know Him personally then claim that “Jesus wouldn’t______” And if I say “Jesus said______,” neither of us speak Aramaic of Greek, eh? So thereby we invite, due to distance in time, space, culture, intention, meaning, nuance, colloquialism, translation, the nature of witnessing, collections, canons, and a host of other factors, not just a few disciplines, including self knowledge, semantics, critical thinking, etc,etc, etc into the equation. I’d say that you display an inordinate level of conviction given what is indeed at hand when anyone says “Jesus said____” and you assume with 1/1 certainty that you personally know exactly and without any iota of deviation what He meant.
I won’t say He did mean, but I will say, eg, “What He said fits, by my lights, what has been proponed by mystery teachings, especially non dualism, since the dawn of history.” I can’t speak for Jesus. Perhaps you can, by third partying your understanding to the Magesterium. I can’t do that and be honest with myself or have integrity, other than to use that as included information.
And I can question all that, because if one can experience, even for a moment, an emotional divorce from the inculcations of that or any belief system, one is in a radically different perspective of assessment. While there is no such thing in my book as absolute objectivity, because that breaks a fundamental law of experience, there is interpretive commonality in many things to the point of near certainty given certain limits. And that is not to be confused with consensus reality, which is what nearly all of faith is.
So you see, neither of us can claim “something about Jesus,” What we might claim is an understanding we have arrived at either from experience, research, inculcation, faith, agreement, or whatever and their combinations. But neither of us does or can have direct knowledge of Jesus. We have no direct knowledge even of the totality of our personality, that showing itself in fragments and various masks according to situations, or even our dearest ones, beyond what we assume from our interactions. Or are you going to tell me that you have never misunderstood any of your beloved children, even a bit?
If yes, how can you or anyone be so blessed adamantly certain that they have a 1/1 knowledge of Jesus, His Teachings as He intended, and for whom He intended, personally or beyond? (Remember, you have Paul to thank for winning out against Peter about who can be Christian, eh? Lord, he went up against the first Pope, for heaven/s sake!) And, as I have often said, there is Mark 4:33,34, and some other related matters.
So, from my perspective, given all that and some other factors not mentioned here, I think that there is just a bit of wiggle room regarding Jesus and what His actual intentions and meaning were. So far as I can see, from the evidence at hand, my interpratations fit as well. And that by no means implies that you can’t or shouldn’t have yours according to your lights. because you obviously do.
G
Gaber
Guest
If I handed a copy of the four Gospels to a proponent of non dualism who had never heard of Jesus, that person might very well comment, “Yes, He was a Teacher of non dualism. The statements and stories all fit.” The beliefs of Catholicism could easily appear to be a massive extrapolation from a few sentences and tradition, all of which under some circumstances for some people would bear questioning. If you don’t do that questioning, that’s great, for you. Some others might find it ethically necessary to do so in order to maintain honesty and integrity within their own context. You may have no such need, so your acceptance of the Faith is an excellent thing for you. I can’t comment on that except to say “perfect!” For you it is, without a doubt.
G
Gaber
Guest
Yes, they have their place, and in some cases a dominant one, in religious practice, whatever the consensus idea of Catholicism or its derivatives might more popularly be. And whatever they have to do with conservatism is delineated in those studies, as it is evident that there is a tendency, it would seem, more than for others, (liberals,) to act from that part of the brain in making decisions which also has to do with fear. And I did not, nor do I think deos the study include guilt in that.
Yes, I am evidence of that, myself. The nuns, priests, and lay teachers of our system did a rather good job with me! They said so themselves.
Heck, the existence of this very forum–known as Catholic ANSWERS–belies your paradigm.
Catholics can question. And I said that where? I think that I spoke many times to the idea of not questioning, but that was specific to that act, one I didn’t distribute over all of the mambership of the Church, or of any group. In fact, I’ve held up some shimnig examples of those who did question, and deeply. I love to read their works, especially the poetry some of them created.
There are also involved in this the ideas of degree and kind. No one, in my experience, doesn’t have questions. I’m also aware that some questions are very useful, others not at all, and any of those can go to some depth or not. So I’m kind of at a loss as to what you are getting at.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
If the Church would teach all three expressions of prayer, not just one or two, described in CCC 2700-2724, to the vast majority of active Catholics, this whole problem would go away. We would begin to see past ourselves, our egos, and our group and subgroup identities we cling to so fearfully.
But only the beginning form of prayer, vocal prayer, is commonly taught, practiced, and even discussed. One could argue whether the Rosary is vocal or meditative, but it is not typically considered a contemplative form at all.
With contemplation, our prayer can achieve true union with Jesus, as 2708 says prayer ***should. *** When we do that we automatically find union with each other. The labels become interesting or attractive decoration but no longer is cause for inter-sibling divisions among Christ’s brothers and sisters.
1 Cor 1
11 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to* Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I give thanks [to God] that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,h
15 so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.
16 (I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)i
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.
Here’s the problem with Catholics who subgroup people – and by the way when they subgroup people they are automatically subgrouping themselves in a complimentary way – when they try to argue intellectually and/or emotionally about who is better or who is more justified or closer to being Truly Catholic, they empty the cross of Christ of its meaning because the cross is about unity, not division. Once we figure that out, we will learn that other faithful Catholics – whether technically correct on any dogmatic issue or not, or share any particular preference for certain aspects of tradition – are not our enemies.
Alan
But only the beginning form of prayer, vocal prayer, is commonly taught, practiced, and even discussed. One could argue whether the Rosary is vocal or meditative, but it is not typically considered a contemplative form at all.
With contemplation, our prayer can achieve true union with Jesus, as 2708 says prayer ***should. *** When we do that we automatically find union with each other. The labels become interesting or attractive decoration but no longer is cause for inter-sibling divisions among Christ’s brothers and sisters.
1 Cor 1
11 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to* Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I give thanks [to God] that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,h
15 so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.
16 (I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)i
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.
Here’s the problem with Catholics who subgroup people – and by the way when they subgroup people they are automatically subgrouping themselves in a complimentary way – when they try to argue intellectually and/or emotionally about who is better or who is more justified or closer to being Truly Catholic, they empty the cross of Christ of its meaning because the cross is about unity, not division. Once we figure that out, we will learn that other faithful Catholics – whether technically correct on any dogmatic issue or not, or share any particular preference for certain aspects of tradition – are not our enemies.
Alan
- Status