Catholic Divisions

[amandaplus5]

And why "can't" you be a good Catholic?

[jasJis]

[quote name='amandaplus5' post='973529' date='May 6 2006, 09:53 AM']
And why "can't" you be a good Catholic?
[/quote]asked the naive 16 year old.

[Lounge Daddy]

just start with an "Our Father" and a "Hail Mary" (or three)
and then pick up the Catechism and read ...and be sure to have a copy of the Bible on hand

start with that... take your time, things will progress for you

To paraphrase hot stuff's earlier comment:
"People move quickly. The Church moves slowly... the quick people tend to screw up"
So take it easy

Meditate, pray, Bible & Catechism
Keep it simple

God bless

[amandaplus5]

[quote]asked the naive 16 year old[/quote]

I'll tell you what: if you don't look down on my "naivety" because of my age, I won't look down on your naivety because of your misconceptions about the Catholic Church.

"Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity." 1 Timothy 4:12

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='jasJis' post='973532' date='May 6 2006, 01:56 PM']
asked the naive 16 year old.
[/quote]

It took my mom 15 years to come back around. She suffered from bad catechesis as well as a personal problem which she did not believe it was possible to get over and remain Catholic.

[dairygirl4u2c]

If I were to make an initial argument for the CC, it would be mostly what the above people are saying regarding how people don't follow set rules. That doesn't disprove the CC, it simply shows people fall short. I'd say that for most of your concerns.

Then you also seem to have concerns for what exactly the rules are. With this in mind, I too have beefs, of course I would being another ex-Catholic, because of that notion of the "ordinary magisterium". The set rules are in the Catechism and fall into the first paragraph here, and everything else is sorta just implied. Of course I don't like that because it can change. If infalibility is true, it's not so much that the infallible teaching changed, it's that something that was thought to be a teaching never really was. Sort of like thinking the earth was flat or something. Most Catholics will say you have to follow the implied beliefs anyway but I would imagine the best argument in favor of the CC for these implied beliefs is that you have to discern them for yourself.

Another beef you brought up was that I found insightful was
[quote]So the parish I should be attending because of geography, I'm not really a member of community. It's more drive thru for the Sacraments cause it's about me and not community where they hold hands, have lifeteen, play guitars, don't genuflect and recieve on the tongue, don't have an adoration chapels, looks 'protestant'. etc?[/quote]

You have a good point. If I were defending the CC I would say that if the people are doing things that are implied or uncertain as wrong, it's probably not a big deal. If they are doing things that are definitely wrong, you can't commune with them fully, but the beauty would be that you commune as much as you can despite your dispute. That way the Church doesn't turn into a bunch of varying beliefs like the Prots are today. Now, I can see a good in that. For me not defending though, I would say that that's not necessarily a bad thing because somethings just shouldn't be made into rules. Unity dispite dispute is common in Prots more than Caths will admit. It's sorta goes back to that Easter dispute in the early Church. Rome thought it should excommunicate people who didn't follow the norm, for unities sake etc I would imagine, but the people getting excommunicated told Rome that Rome should not fool itself and that it has excommunicated itself from everyone else. I guess some would argue that there's MORE unity in the CC dispite dispute than the varying Prots. Are the themes unitying Catholics that cannot unite Prots really that necessary or even true?
So really, for this point it all depends on how you look at it I suppose.

Edited May 6, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Akalyte]

Jas, none of us are perfectly good Catholics. We all fall. But that's no excuse to leave the Church. I know you man, and you know me. I remember your posts in the past! You were a great Catholic! The Church is still beautiful. It still has the fullness of truth. No matter how many weak human beings it contains.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='973573' date='May 6 2006, 10:21 AM']
Jas, none of us are perfectly good Catholics. We all fall. But that's no excuse to leave the Church. I know you man, and you know me. I remember your posts in the past! You were a great Catholic! The Church is still beautiful. It still has the fullness of truth. No matter how many weak human beings it contains.[/quote]I am a better man and a better Christian than who I was 3 years ago. Sorry, you didn't know me. As far as my Catholic status, I'm just more honest now because I'm more knowledgeable.

[amandaplus5]

Out of curiousity, how did you go from being a strong Catholic to being on the other end of the spectrum?

[dairygirl4u2c]

So what's your stance really for being exCatho? For me, it's the CC could possibly be construed as true from historical fact, but the facts to me seem to point the other way. See "no salvation outside the CC" or the Photius threads etc from me for more info. I suppose when it comes down to it also, beyond the facts which are enough for me not to be Catho, I disagree with some of the teachings, so any historical uncertainty which could go either way will go against the CC because we all have to decide when looking into the CC's validity.

It'd seem that your stance would be like mine regarding uncertainty and things you disagree with. I'm not sure though because you don't discuss historical uncertainty etc. All I see you do point out things you disagree with, but not noting how the CC has contradicted itself or proved itself wrong. I don't know, simply saying that you disagree with the CC out of personal preference if that's your stance doesn't seem to sit well with me. It'd seem you should base things from more of a historical basis, or at least have some sort of objective basis or at least speculation.

I say that because the arguments being made against your arguments I think refute yours, because the people are sinners. If a Church like the the CC is true, and the people can be sinners, which seems to be a reasonable stance, then your arguments are notable but not anything which can discount the validity of a true Church. You need some more objective basis to add to your speculation about the sinners and uncertainty you mentioned. Without my objective speculation, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the CC with the arguments mentioned by you.

Edited May 6, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Catholic Fanatic]

The facts do speak for themselves. My Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church mentioned in the Bible and started by Jesus Christ in 33AD. The Church of JasJis is a sham which started whenever he was born. He speaks only of minor issues of the sinners in the Church instead of attacking the Church objectively. His arguments have been shown to be irrational as reasons to leave against the proofs for the Church. He knows he cannot disprove the Church, and that the Church proves itself, so he persists in his feigned blindness. If his pride or other motives are causing him to leave sinnfully, he should stop those vices. If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off. He knows he is headed for eternal damnation, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. The Terrible Judge will call to Himself Jas and will have him killed, the same way Christ said he would call sinners to Himself and have them killed in the Gosple of Luke. Jas will not be released until he has paid the last penny.

Edited May 6, 2006 by Catholic Fanatic

[jasJis]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='973629' date='May 6 2006, 11:44 AM']
It'd seem you should base things from more of a historical basis, or at least have some sort of objective basis or at least speculation.

I say that because the arguments being made against your arguments I think refute yours, because the people are sinners. If a Church like the the CC is true, and the people can be sinners, which seems to be a reasonable stance, then your arguments are notable but not anything which can discount the validity of a true Church. You need some more objective basis to add to your speculation about the sinners and uncertainty you mentioned. Without my objective speculation, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the CC with the arguments mentioned by you.[/quote]LOL. Half the time I don't understand What in the Hell you are talking about, but I understand you loud and clear. My problem stems with hair splitting rules that has become the Catholic Church here on earth. Maybe it's my misperception based on my experiences here. Let's start from the fundamentals. God is good and the only God. He created us with free will. Free will let's us choose good or evil. God tolerates the presence of evil because Free Will means we have to have a choice. To compensate for the damge and death evil does, God heals and re-births for good. By becoming Man and God incarnate, God experienced all the evil we can do to 'earn' and justify His mercy. God is constantly present with us via the Holy Spirit. Despite me putting this all in a few sentences, I don't think most Christians would have too much problem with that. (Though of course, here at pm, there will be a dozen posts 'clarifying and correcting' me because of their theological studies and degrees.) Peter was a fisherman, Paul was the scholar. Who became 'pope'?

Religion is a human institution that transmits and preserves Divine Knowledge of God. Basically so we don't all have to re-create the world. That's Tradition. Disposing of that Tradition, you end up with all these wacky prot religions. Fine. Let's preserve Tradition. So then we have a Tradtional religion. What part of that Tradition do we keep or let go? The part that says God loves us and became Man seems reasonable and Right. The lack of this Traditional Knowledge knocks the Mormons out. What about the Tradition of the Supper? Do we do it in homes? What's the understanding of that? Circumcise, or not as Paul and Peter had to resove? The Tradition Religion has to have some sort of discerning athority, doesn't it? People are reading this and saying jas is talking himself right into the Catholic Church. I'm not.

Here's my stumbling block. The Church 'athority' has done alot of wrong things because of the human element. Are Jews accursed or not? Are they condemned or not? Is the NO Mass an abomination against Tradition or not? Should Confirmation and Communion be administered at Birth like in the Eastern Church, or staged out like the Western Church? Should Sacraments be 3 seperate acts of Initiation into the Church or 3 parts of one Sacrament? Who to believe? Where does the Church's real ability to be 'infalible' begin or end in these matters? Do the 'faithful' have to be theological experts to figure it out?

Then, looking at the human element of the Church and it being a civil power on Earth, it's power is then open to abuse by mere humans like you and I. Be careful how you question Church authority. It may get you burned at the stake, ostracized in society, condemned to hell. If you want that power, become a clergyman. History shows how this was repeatedly done. Even at low levels today. The Church needs to curb that, but it's done a very poor job at it. Bad priests are one thing, bad bishops, cardinals, and popes are another. Luther was right about the abuse of power. But if you discount the leaders too much, you end up with 30,000 denoms and two different baptist churches accross the street from each other.

I'm a big believer that the truth coming from humans is somewhere in the middle of what people are willing and able to tell you and you have a bit of common sense and the sure knowledge you just won't know for sure.

I see the Church as having two natures. The Divine nature is protected always by God. Grace here on earth is ensured. The Temporal nature is humanity's free will. Church leaders and congregation are imperfect, with free will, and often have their own agendas. How do we tell when the Church's judgement is Divine and perfect or human and possibly imperfect? We humans are imperfect and do our best to discern where to draw that line. We also make judgements about what the 'religion' leaders do or say or teach.

The line I draw and the line the temporal Catholic Church draws has us separated. The problem is where does God draw the line? If I discard the Church's line, I risk blinding myself. If I discard my line for just the Church's, I risk lying to myself. What I'm having a hell of a time is discerning whether the human nature of the Church or the Divine nature of the Church is drawing the line. Should I move my line or am I on the right side?

[AngelofJesus]

Jas,

I agree with everything you have said in this thread. Some of what you have said had been profound questions that I had prior to my becoming devout. I had let myself get caught up in the semantics of how it is to be catholic. From reading arguing and discussing with you, I know that you are very knowlegeable of the catholic faith. Much more than most of us. That's why I get shocked when you post and claim that you are not catholic. Being a good scholar of the church does not guarantee that you will be saved anyway. A doctor of the church St. Therese of Liseiux did not read much except the bible and The imitation of Christ.
What's the point learning all things scholarly? When all Jesus wants is for you to love Him and from that you will learn to love your neighbor. There is not greater virtue than love as you know. You add the Holy Eucharist and reconciliation and you're there. Easy. No need to complicate your life nor your faith.

Your brother in Christ,

AoJ

[jasJis]

AoJ,
Are you a member of the same Catholic Church that Catholic Fanatic belongs to? Which of you is right?

[AngelofJesus]

Jas,

I believe that condemning you and saying that you wil go to hell is not anybody's job. The greatest hurt that we cause Jesus is not that we sin, it is because that we doubt His mercy and love. He wants us to abandon ourselves to him by leaving everything to Him. Maybe the reason that you have this feelings about the church is because he wants you to evaluate your priorities. What is the most important thing? Your salvation. Who can give that to you? Jesus. How do you get it? Loving Him. How can you love Him? Abandon yourself to Him. Let him lead you.

I was led back to the church by Jesus because I trusted him. Period.

I have to go, I will be back later. My wife beckons. Teehee.

Your brother in Christ,

AoJ