This is my spiritual journey
Easter Vigil March 22, 2008 I proclaimed, “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God,” and that still is true today. I adhere to the Nicene Creed as my profession of faith.
I have little idea why people are making me out to be a heretic of sorts. I simply cannot see it.
Yes, I read and laud the works of Borg and Spong and Crossan; the work of these scholars is helping us to further our religion. Yes, I am (somewhat) theologically liberal. But I am now and will always remain a Roman Catholic Christian. I do not see any reason why I should leave the Church.
Just because I’m not against women’s ordination doesn’t mean I actively support it. I don’t go to Mass wearing rainbow sashes. I’m perfectly content with the consistency of the Catholic teachings on sexuality. Just because I try to understand Jesus Christ as both a historical and divine figure doesn’t mean I’m ready to tear down the walls of the faith and start anew.
You know, people have been claiming that I’ve been going through “violent changes” and I haven’t been doing enough to deny it. I’ve always been theologically liberal! I come from Anglicanism! I’ve always struggled with doubts. Everyone seems to think that I left Anglicanism because they became “too liberal,” but this is utter nonsense. I’m not like other ex-Protestants who come “home to Rome” because their old denomination had “strayed too far away from historic Christianity” (or anything to that effect). I came over because I have been convinced and I believe (for whatever reason) that the Roman Catholic Church is the original Church starting with Peter as the first Pope.
So I will say it again for people who think I’m denying it. I, Erik, believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God. There.
What have I said that is contrary to what the Church teaches? That the Bible was written by inspired men but also contains mythological elements (such as the Creation story)? That some aspects of the Church have pagan roots? That I care to receive Jesus under both forms at Communion?
Does anyone honestly believe that I would go through six months of RCIA if I didn’t believe it? That I would put myself under unnecessary familial scorn? Why would I go through with something if I didn’t believe in it and it was causing me stress at home? I believe in the Church so much that I just couldn’t wait any longer to be received into it.
But that doesn’t mean I shed all of my previously held convictions and doubts. I am growing and developing as a person, just like all the other ex-Campbellite folks who eventually left the church of their youth.
And you know, I don’t care what these people from the internet think about me, but when they post statements on the internet calling me heretical or saying that I was being deceptive throughout my RCIA journey, that’s libel and I’m tired of it.
Odd thing is- no one has even told me anything that I said which is heretical. Simply because I’m suggesting that people read books by authors with which they don’t necessarily agree I’m suddenly deemed a heretic. Even through my periods of doubt and disbelief, I still leave that image up that reads, “Proudly entered the Catholic Church in 2008.”
Another thing that gets me mad is that people keep lambasting my intelligence as if I have said, “Ok, I know that I’m smarter than all of you so just listen to what I have to say.” I never have claimed to been of higher intelligence than anyone; in fact, the opposite is true. I recall saying to someone at that Catholic board (I think Stephanie, but I’m not sure), “Now you’re forgetting that I’m a teenager which means that I know everything.” I openly profess that I don’t know everything, or hell even anything! I’m not a scholar! For people to attack what little intelligence I do have is insulting indeed!
One reason why I left Anglicanism was because of all the bickering. Seems as if I can’t escape it.
In conclusion (if there can even be one), you may disagree with me and that’s all good and well, but do not say that I am not a Catholic, or even worse, not a Christian. I am a Christian and will identify myself as one for the time being.
There, now I am officially finished with it.
Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 10:02 am
Erik, dear…have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps some of the reason many different people are getting similar impressions is because of the way you’ve presented yourself?
Normally, someone struggling with doubts doesn’t suggest a heretical book as brazenly and confidently as you do. The things you say and the way you say them have implications…perhaps you’re projecting a confidence that isn’t there when you say these things, and that’s ok, but maybe you need to work on that? I believe you when you say you don’t think you know everything, I just think maybe you don’t realize your words sometimes don’t seem to match up with that.
And honestly, are you truly surprised that some people might come to the conclusion you’ve come to accept or agree with some heresy when you talk admiringly of heretical figures and suggest their books? I mean, that’s not a huge leap is it? Now, I was hoping I had misunderstood and I asked you in your comment box a few blogposts down whether I had or not, and I’d been checking back often waiting to hear “yes, you’ve misunderstood! Of course I don’t agree with those heretical authors.”
Wanting to learn about the “historical” Jesus is no excuse, really…have you read Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth? Our brilliant Pope explains in the front of his book just what is wrong with historical criticism when separated from the faith, and explains that you can’t know the historical Jesus without knowing his faith, our faith. Especially from the “Jesus Seminar.” There are plenty of great historical looks at Jesus from non-heretical sources….why not read those if you want to know about the historical Jesus?
Now I, personally, have never called you a heretic. I’ve pointed out that sources you are siting are heretical and I’ve asked if you agree with them or not. If the answer is “no” then there’s nothing to worry about, and really no need to waste time with pseudo-historians trying to turn Jesus into profit and agenda.
Now, unfortunately the more I read, the less clear I become…
“I have little idea why people are making me out to be a heretic of sorts. I simply cannot see it.”
I read this and think, “Oh good! Perhaps I completely misunderstood…”
Then I read the very next paragraph:
“Yes, I read and laud the works of Borg and Spong and Crossan; the work of these scholars is helping us to further our religion.”
*Shaking head sadly* Apparently I didn’t.
Do you still have “little idea” why people think such things when you make statements like that? I’m sorry, Erik, but you simply cannot truly believe and profess all that the Church teaches and mean the above sentences. It isn’t possible. Those men are heretics, which means they teach things contrary to the faith. Nobody teaching things contrary to the faith can “further our religion,” that is the talk of schismatics and dissenters, not faithful Catholics.
Now, I never said you weren’t Catholic or weren’t Christian or should leave the Church, and I don’t think those things. I do think you are treading on dangerous waters by filling your head with the rot that is Borg, Crossan, and Spong. They deny the divinity of Jesus, they deny the resurrection, they deny that he did any miracles, they deny everything that makes Jesus who he is, but all under the guise of “But if you want to believe it, it’s real for you”! Talk about cowards, they don’t even acknowledge their heresy, which makes them worse because they deceive people, and you know what happens when people live in the Euphoria of “oh history doesn’t back it up but I believe anyway so it’s real for me!” and then wake up one day and see what a load of BS that is? They end up losing faith altogether, as anyone in their right mind would, since it makes no sense to believe something that history denies. But their version of history is loaded with agenda, it is faux-history. With the struggles you already deal with, I’m being so harsh on these guys with you because I worry that they’ll lead you to atheism, as they have so many already. You’re already (perhaps uncosciously) picking up their habit of doublespeak, I’m afraid…
How you can claim to admire them and in the same breath claim you don’t disagree with anything the Church teaches is beyond me. Either you don’t agree with anything they wrote but for some reason admire them anyway, or you don’t agree with the Church but claim you do. I worry that “I agree with the Church” means the same thing as Borg meant when he said “I believe in the resurrection” and then procdeeded to explain that he didn’t believe in the resurrection in so many words.
And I honestly couldn’t care less about the whole liberal/conservative thing, I don’t use those terms in regard to religion because those are political terms. Jesus was not “liberal” or “conservative,” he was not a politician, he didn’t have some agenda…Jesus was and is Truth, period. Liberality and conservatism both have aspects of that truth, but neither has the whole. Only Christ and His Church. One is either faithful to the Church’s teachings, or they’re not. There’s really no two ways about it. Sure there are grey areas in application, but as for the core of our faith, you either agree that Christ actually resurrected or you don’t, despite what wolves in sheep’s clothing want to claim by speaking out both sides of their mouth. It’s pretty simple, really.
As for the bickering…I’m sorry to tell you that this is a human problem, and wherever you have humans, you will have bickering. As the Church is made up of humans, you’ll have bickering among them. HOWEVER, because the Church is divinely guided, and because we have a clear source of authority, you won’t have the same kind of bickering as Anglicans, as you won’t find any serious argument among Church officials about the core of our faith and her teachings as you do in Anglicanism. It’s interesting to me that you claim you hate this bickering, and yet that is exactly the kind of thing Crossan is promoting…disagreement and bickering with the Church on core essentials of the faith. Of course, they don’t give him the time of day because what he says is so obviously contrary to the faith that it’s not even worth considering.
So at the end of this post, I’m still rather confused as to where you stand. I want to believe the “I completely agree with the Church” parts of your posts, but right now in order to do that I’d have to ignore other significant parts of your post.
In other words, you’re contradicting yourself…this is why people are confused. Clear up the contradictions, one way or the other (though of course I hope it’s by finally rejecting the heretical rot of the so-called historians) and the confusion will cease.
Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I said I would drop it, but I need to say this. I never said (as far as I know; if I did, then I misspoke) that I agreed with Spong and Borg. I am just suggesting that people (specifically and especially fundamentalists) read their works. They are great scholars, even if I disagree with some of their assertions. I always laud books that I think are worthy to be read, even if I personally disagree with them. Everyone has something to bring to the table, even if it goes against facts. Martin Luther did much to further our religion, yet he was a “heretic” and “schismatic.” I’ve tried to remain diplomatic and simply offer an open-minded approach to things by not stating my personal opinions about the men themselves but rather offering and praising their works; I guess this is where all the confusion on the part of others as to what exactly I believe comes in. I’m just as apt to suggest that people read the works of NT Wright or CS Lewis any other orthodox Christian and laud them. I’ll also suggest that people read Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens or Bertrand Russell and praise these books for what they bring to the table. My point is that I am still learning so I refuse no book or scholar at this age and I suggest that others read as many books as they can by as many heretics (and orthodox) as they can in order to truly learn and develop. That’s all. I’m not asking that people subscribe to their beliefs. In regards to where this all started (that post with Centurion), I never said, “Well, these scholars disagree so you must be wrong.” I merely asked, “What of these scholars?” (a question he dodged, but that’s fine).
I never “quoted the Jesus Seminar as fact,” though I once did claim that Communion was of pagan origins, and I’m still unsure about this; but I am understanding and appreciating it better. I’m still not comfortable calling it a “sacrifice.” I picked this up while being with the Lutherans and Anglicans (they were all about taking away calling it a sacrifice). I still believe in the Real Presence, but calling it a “sacrifice” seems pagan to me. I know that it’s not a different sacrifice but rather a re-presentation of the same sacrifice on Calvary, but it still does not sit right with me. Transubstantiation seems to be pushing things to me, as well. I can go along with consubstantiation, but it will take some moving of the Holy Spirit for me to completely agree with transubstantiation, so I guess that’s where faith comes into play.
Oh well. I know where my heart and beliefs lie and I know that I am not a heretic (no matter how much people doubt it and claim that I’m lying), and that’s all that really matters.
Friday, May 9, 2008 at 10:12 am
Thank you for clarifying, that helps me understand better.
“I’ve tried to remain diplomatic and simply offer an open-minded approach to things by not stating my personal opinions about the men themselves but rather offering and praising their works; I guess this is where all the confusion on the part of others as to what exactly I believe comes in.”
Exactly!
I understand your intent here…I just believe it’s misguided. Some books are seriously spiritually dangerous for certain people, and while I personally might read a very atheistic book to get a feel for their side of things or see their arguments, I wouldn’t go around recommending it to others precisely because when you recommend a book, it’s usually understood that you recommend and agree with its content unless specified otherwise. Besides which, not everyone has the ability to read things so very contrary to the faith and not have some of that seep into their thinking…and if I were to humbly offer you some advice to strengthen your faith which has been on shaky ground as of late, it would be to step away from the books for a while. ALL books, even Catholic ones for now….and simply live the Catholic Life. Experience the Eucharist. Go to adoration. Go to confession. Go to mass. Just Be Catholic.
I’m an avid reader so I know how hard that is, but I honestly think it’s the only way you’ll be able to settle into the faith a bit. You’re not even one foot in and you’re already shaking yourself up by reading this stuff! And you may not think it affects you…but I can already see its effects on your thinking. Don’t let pride trick you into thinking you’re stronger than you are, acknowledge your humanity and be smart.
I’m not sure why you seem to think the faith of the Church needs “furthering” at all, really. The practice and disciplines can always improve, of course, but the Deposit of Faith was given to us by Christ Himself, and it needs no improving. Luther did not “further our religion,” he was not the only one calling for some needed reforms of practice…others did as well, and did it licitly and within the Church, and they are the ones who helped the practice get better, not Luther who split and made his own church. But the faith itself, given by Christ, needs no improvement. It is we who need to internalize it more fully, and all we need to do that is within the Church herself, atheists and pseudo-Christians are not going to be the ones to help the authentic faith be lived more fully.
I’ll leave with one last thought and then I’ll drop it…in life, in marriage, in family, I’ve learned something. You know how you said that God is Love? It’s true….and do you know how love most powerfully expresses itself? Through sacrifice.
It’s nice when my husband says he loves me…but when he foregoes playing a video game to help me with dishes, his sacrifice is love in action.
The very problem with Christians trying to get rid of the cross and the sacrifice is that it would destroy the very soul of Christianity, which is Love. Jesus wouldn’t be the ultimate example, the very essence of Love itself without the cross, without the sacrifice.
Pax
Friday, May 9, 2008 at 10:22 am
And then the Bible verse popped into my head, lol…
There is no greater love than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
Friday, May 9, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Ok, last post, promise!! lol…
I was sewing and listening to some of my favorite music, among them is Nickel Creek’s “The Hand Song.” This song makes me cry almost every time, and when I lthought about it I knew why…because it’s about love as sacrifice. :*-)
Here it is on YouTube (some of the pics are cheesy and weird, lol, but at least you can hear the song): http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fy_9dIVrEjA
Here are the lyrics:
The boy only wanted to give Mother something
And all of her roses had bloomed
Looking at her as he came rushing in
Knowing her roses were doomed
All she could see were some thorns buried deep
And the tears that he cried as she tended his wounds
And she knew it was love
It was one she could understand
He was showing his love
And that’s how he hurt his hands
He still remembers that night as child
On his mother’s knee
She held him close and she opened her bible
And quietly started to read
And seeing a picture of Jesus he cried out
“Momma, he’s got some scars just like me.”
And he knew it was love
It was one he could understand
He was showing his love
And that’s how he hurt his hands
Now the boy’s grown and moved out on his own
When Uncle Sam comes along
A foreign affair, but our young men were there
And luck had his number drawn
It wasn’t that long till our hero was gone
He gave to a friend what he learned from the cross
But they knew it was love
It was one they could understand
He was showing his love
And that’s how he hurt his hands
It was one they could understand
He was showing his love
And that’s how he hurt his hands