It’s hard to see you all going in circles, knowing that this subject is so personal for imonk and his wife.

May I submit that it might be more respectful to just let this drop, for a while, at least? If I were imonk, I’d seriously consider making this subject off-limits for discussion in comments. (Have been a BB mod myself, and some subjects just seem to be tailor-made for flaming… this seems to be one of them, on this site and others like it.)

Just my .02-worth…

It is a deeply painful situation.

I have the most difficulties when my wife and I go back to the Anglican parish of her youth. I have received Communion there a few times (as commentators would point out, in violation of Canon Law). I was deeply torn at those times and I regret doing so, but it is very difficult to resist because A) we were married there B) my step-family is all there C) the liturgy is so similar and, in many ways, superior to the Catholic Mass we usually attend.

I am, however, thankful for the response of the bishops on this issue. It is pastoral but firm. I need not remind people here that things were much more strict a few decades ago, when you could not even go into a Protestant church building, let alone attend a service, sing the hymns, etc… Imagine how hard that would be for a couple or a family? Much like the Catholic praxis regarding divorce and remarriage (another painful point, not for me, but for many), the newer guideline tries to walk the line between respect for the truth and respect for legitimately painful and often intractable circumstances. People sometimes talk about remarriage as if there were no possibility of them committing adultery by doing so. Also, without the support of the Magisterium, there is no way I would possess the fortitude and resolve to risk hurting the feelings of those I love on this issue. For that I am grateful although I grieve over the division it causes.

Shayne — my journey has been very similar to yours only I started from a place of abject, parentally enforced alcoholicly insane atheism in a suburban sea of large devout Catholic families. By the time I had my Pauline experience and started to devour the Bible and anything evangelical and charismatic I could get my hands on, I was a college student well versed in critical thinking, and I was and still am not afraid to put anything that has passed through human reasoning and intellect to the test — “infallible” or else. But that that is even a huge issue for some is extremely suspect since Papal infallibility has been invoked so infrequently and about what happened to the body of Our Lord’s Mother and the like. The very fact that there are those who totally discount the presence of any value to Apostolic succession also makes me suspicious of the origins and the motives involved.

Coming from such a dysfunctional background I have to be particularly suspicious of my own motivation of what “spiritual” dogmas I cling to. I have to continually ask myself whether I feel comfortable with a particular belief system because it matches some deep seated harmful attitude I learned or adopted as a coping mechanism as a child that is something I really need to abandon for something better and more challenging.

But the fact that I question everything has served me well. As earlier posts have alluded to, God doesn’t want robots. And as Joseph Campbell used to say, belief systems (he, of course, identified them all as mythic metanarratives) are meant to be like the nurturing pouches of marsupial mothers — “a womb with a view” he would say. The purpose of such systems of belief is to give the individual the ability to learn how to negotiate the grave dangers and pitfalls, challenges and rewards of Life from a safe vantage point until he or she is ready to venture out into the world as a freethinking adult. The problem, he would say, with Western religious institutions is that they demand to keep the individual in the womb “from cradle to grave.”

I, of course, do not agree with Campbell’s personal decisions on which specific beliefs to embrace (he left devout Roman Catholicism for something more Hindu), but the above referenced analysis of his is dead on, in my opinion.

Up to the age of 44, I was Catholic – in a cultural sense, Catholic schools, and self-identified as a Catholic in any census, statistical questionnaire. I then had a road to Damascus experience (and because people can’t stand, weird Christians, I don’t talk about it any more) and became a follower of Jesus. My wife is Anglican, and, at that time, I straddled church life between my wife’s (bible-based) church community and a local catholic charismatic group. In both areas they accepted my ‘dual nationality’, mainly because my life and my walk reflects what I believe.

Over, the next fifteen years, I became a specialist in early church history, focused on the Jewish-Christian split, this included, detailed DSS analysis, and resulted in trips to Israel, and weeks of walking around the history. My favorite, early church father, was Augustine – and up to a few years ago, stayed away from later theologians like Aquinas, because I was told he was just too brilliant. Didn’t think, I had the intellectual and spiritual ability to study his words but, I’ve since found that his strength is his weakness, detailed processes of logical steps – that are now easily refuted. I also had at my elbow a well-worn copy of the Catholic Catechism.

There was one major nagging thought, I have an unshakable belief in the love of my God, as demonstrated on His cross, and that I believe His Word, that if I should die tonight – I will be in paradise with Him. Nothing in my hands I bring – you know the rest …. How could anyone, who loves and knows Jesus, condemn my assurance, as a sin?

The second thought is this: there is no new, essential revelation after Rev 22:21. Hence the difficulty with the promulgating of the Bull, Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Now, the belief is not the issue, but the process, which states that what we may have believed about this issue, for 1900 years was once okay, but now, it’s not – even more than that- this belief is now essential for salvation; plus, if we create doubts in Catholic minds – we are cursed with the fires of hell. All the Catholic (academic) theologians that I’ve discussed the detail of this document with, and especially its footnotes, have pulled out of the discussion. Why? The answer is they can only fall back on the claim that the Pope is infallible. Early Church history and Scripture leaves them with no where else to go.

Recently, about two years ago (that’s recent for an old man), I spent days praying about this – then, I awoke in the middle of one night, with a fantastic feeling – I’ve never actually believed the Catholic position. I’m free. Do I reject the good of the Catholic Church – no; and my spiritual mentor remains a Catholic priest; because he too, can see the bigger picture. Strange how God works through our human frailty. Umm – longer than I thought – sorry.

Tim — I do miss some Holy Days.

We’re all in need of the grace of God. But no, I don’t see the bishops “winking at” anything in that piece you quoted, and I don’t see the bare minimum exposition of the faith and discipline of the Church as “blaming the laity”.

To take your funpark theme: you can argue over whether the prices are too high, or if the cocoanut shy is fixed, or if your twelve year old is tall enough to get on the ride. I don’t think anyone would accept that those in charge do not have the right to make rules, or when they say “You have to be this high to get on this ride”, they do it in a nod-and-wink fashion that is to be taken as “Sure, we say that, but we don’t mean it! Your six-month old baby can go on, if you like!”. You can insist on your right to break the rules but if the security guards toss you out, I don’t think you have the right to be too surprised.

Thanks guys. I know it’s a big issue but I can’t have that debate take over this thread.

I don’t want this to devolve into a debate, but I have to say that I can’t see how reading the Bible can lead one to any conclusion short of Consubstantiation, if not full-on Transubstantiation. John 6, for starters. I mean, come on. Jesus may have also said he was a door, but he didn’t spend an entire sermon trying to convince people that they had to literally open him up and walk inside in order to be saved. The Real Presence, in a dead-literal flesh and blood sense, is one of the essentials of the Faith, not an optional feature.

Paul says undiscerning partaking of communion caused physical sickness and death. 1 Cor. 11:27-32. Communion is a powerful, mysterious thing. There is nothing loving about a church permitting a guy like Surfnetter eat and drink judgment on himself. It shows a lack of faith and seriousness about Christ’s commands.

The church cannot set aside Christ’s truth whenever it causes heartache. Should it marry gays? Ordain women? Should it reject the idea of hell and damnation for those without faith? Families are divided over Christ’s truth all over the world, and Christ told us it to expect it. If you have a firm conviction that RCC doctrine is incorrect, you should not want to commune there and drink judgment on yourself.