The Holy Sacrifice and the Holy Priesthood

For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

-Malachi 1:11 DRB

The Mass is a wonderful thing… A perfect Sacrifice to God the Father, on our behalf, by Jesus Christ, both Priest and Victim… Here is what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says about this:

The Mass A Sacrifice Of Praise, Thanksgiving And Propitiation

This being the case, it must be taught without any hesitation that, as the holy Council (of Trent) has also explained, the sacred and holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, or a mere commemoration of the Sacrifice performed on the cross, but also truly a propitiatory Sacrifice, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious to us. If, therefore, with a pure heart, a lively faith, and affected with an inward sorrow for our transgressions, we immolate and offer this most holy victim, we shall, without doubt, obtain mercy from the Lord, and grace in time of need; for SO delighted is the Lord with the door of this victim that, bestowing on us the gift of grace and repentance, He pardons our sins. Hence this usual prayer of the Church: As often as the commemoration of this victim is celebrated, so often is the work of our salvation being done; that is to say, through this unbloody Sacrifice flow to us the most plenteous fruits of that bloody victim.

A wonderful thing after Mass today, at St. Anne’s, as I finished praying the Evening Liturgy of the Hours, a young man came up to me and asked me about the Sacrament of Confession or Reconciliation or Penance. He had not gone for quite some times. Been there, done that, you know what I mean? Apparently, some things I might have said might have jogged some discernment in some of the youth, as they had a meeting the other day to plan for the coming catechetical year. I discussed with them the importance of the Mass, namely, the Eucharist. St. Paul talks about how we should “discern the body” before partaking of the “cup of the Lord”… Why? The Eucharist is not a right, it is a gift. It is a gift to those who are in a state of grace. I admitted to them how I used to receive “unworthily,” and how that made me feel even worse than if I didn’t receive at all. Why? St. Paul tells us that if we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord unworthily, we “eat and drink judgment on ourselves”…

Forgive my use of a Protestant version, but it is easier for my readers than the Douay-Rheims:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (27) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. (28) Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. (29) For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. (30) That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (31) But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.

-1 Corinthians 11:26-31 ESV

When I attended a Missouri Synod (hardcore branch) Lutheran service 2 years ago (Not in place of Catholic Mass of course), I was surprised to find that they had large cards in every pew: “We practice CLOSED Communion”… This basically means that, they take their “eucharist” seriously. A non-Lutheran cannot receive their “eucharist”. If the Lutherans give so much glory and honor to their normal piece of bread (Lutheran clergy do not have a valid priestly ordination, thus they cannot confect the Eucharist; the same is true with Anglican orders), then we should at least take care to advise those we know, that they must be Roman Catholic first, and in a state of a grace second, to receive Holy Communion, lest we too be responsible for such a sacrilege.

So, I gave this young man a quick “crash course” in how to go to Confession. I gave him my Prayer book, which gives the formula. When I was younger, I remember that the priest required me to say my Act of Contrition. They don’t ask anymore, and I asked the priest today if I should say it, he said “after”… Anyway, this young man walked out after receiving the grace of the Sacrament, prayed his Penance, and with a big smile on his face, gave me a hug… “Thank you… I feel so much better”… That’s the sort of reaction I tried to describe to them last week… the feeling of actually receiving the Body of our Lord, worthily… What a joy! There’s nothing like it. It always feels like a huge burden is lifted… Talk about a “personal relationship” with our Lord… There’s nothing more “personal”, as our Protestant brothers and sisters phrase it, than receiving Christ Himself, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity… everyday if possible.

Now, on a related, but separate topic. I had 3 people ask me if I was a seminarian today at St. Anne’s. Sorry, I am not… “We’ll see” I told all of them, including Father Tran. One of them was a lady after me in line. I was next, and then she called me to share a story with me. She said, years ago, her son died in Vietnam… She said she came to the side altar, where the tabernacle is to pray. That was when the altar rail was still there, she added. As she was praying, and weeping, the statue of our Lord, which is a Sacred Heart statue, manifested a miracle. The Heart of our Lord began to bleed. It dripped onto the altar itself. She went up to clean it up, and then it vanished. “The Lord listens to us, he does listen” she said with a smile on her face. She said, she hasn’t told many because they may not believe. Then I was next for Confession, but before I went in, I said to her “Thank you for sharing that story, I do believe it… I do! God Bless you.” What a wonderful story to set the tone for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass…

Anyway, what I was going to say was… I don’t know if I have a vocation. I will pray some more, and when my Master’s program is over, perhaps my vocation will be clear. However, I encourage those who receive my posts, either for yourself, or those whom you may forward this to… Have an open heart for God’s call… I wanted to share some videos and a slide show. The first one drove me to tears when I first watched it weeks ago… The Catholic faith is such a beautiful thing, and for me to attempt to describe it, will never do it justice…

We need holy priests of God.

God Bless you all.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Laurence A. Gonzaga

These are short clips… very powerful… very moving…

1. God in the Streets of New York (short video, 3 mins)

2. Fishers of Men (Trailer, 3 mins; I ordered the full DVD)

3. Sisters of St. John the Baptist (short video, 3 mins)

4. FSSP Presentation (1 min)

Can we bring back a Catholic Culture?

Laurence,
What great answers you gave her. You can tell she's got all the protestant influences. Those are the same biases I've heard at the protestant churches and groups I've visited. I will pray that she opens up to wanting to know more. How exciting. So many people are going to come back to the catholic church. I know many have but I believe we're going to see more. It's something the Holy Spirit is doing and He's using you in a mighty way. I'm going to print your writing so that I can refer to it when I get those questions. Because if you know me, I'm always talking to lots of people.
Linda

Linda,

All conversions are due solely to the grace of God, of course... But people like you and myself are placed in certain positions, as we all are, I believe, to be links in the chain of that grace, to enlighten those whose lives we are involved in... Her real name is Kimberly, by the way. I looked at her site, she has changed her major to "Religion" and wants to get a Masters in Divinity... and her brother is in Seminary (Protestant)... I have met so many people who left the Church for such small reasons, and our church is not doing anything to stop it. But, we do have small pockets of hope here and there, where priests, like ours, is a gift from above, to light a fire in the congregation... Lest another fire be their destiny, if you know what I mean.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Laurence

I think what has happened in the past that caused people to leave the catholic church has come from being evangelized by friends and acquaintances from other churches. For example, Joe goes with his friend to Calvary Chapel. He sees all the cool people there with their bibles. The people are excited to be there, listening intently as the pastor proclaims the good news. When the sevice is over he meets other people his age that are excited about the Lord and gets invited to a bible study. As he gets to know the new friends he sees that they have a certain joy and are living for the Lord. Little by little the protestant views come in that are contrary to the catholic church and he thinks well, these people must have the truth because they really are living out their relationships with the Lord. He's fellowshipping with other Christians and has changed his life. He's got support from his new Christian friends, life is wonderful so he feels he must have done something right. What are we missing? What is the answer? The catholics probably need to be more excited about their faith and provide follow up with those that are new to the fold. Catholics need to evangelize for one thing and learn more about their faith to begin with. What do you think? How can we help change things, I know the first thing we do is pray but what else can we do? Now that I think about it, a lot of the responsibility lies with the parents. They may not be conveying the fullness and importance of having a living relationship with God and His Catholic church to their children. I know that when I grew up it was like, go to mass once a week make the sacraments and your good. Now we are adults and we need to get away from that mindset and teach our children about what it is to be a real Catholic Christian who is putting God first in their lives. The parents need to go to catechism even more than the kids do. We need to have a bible study called, "Train your children in the ways of the Lord and they will not depart from it." or something like that....... It needs to be exciting and taught by someone who is excited about their faith. What do you think?

Linda,

You are absolutely right about how Catholics are taken out of the Church, and I’ve been singing that song for years. The churches will not allow an apologetics class, the only way I got to teach it at St. Anne’s is because it was supposed to be a “Youth Bible study”… The red tape is endless, and I’d rather not deal with it. I think all those who are involved in teaching Catholic children should know the basics of how to defend the Catholic faith… All it takes is a few seeds of doubt to cultivate the tree of heresy. One man during the Da Vinci Code protests talked to me for over an hour; he was raised Catholic. He converted to Islam because he didn’t know why we prayed to saints and confessed to priests. All it took was 10-15 minutes to explain those practices to him and he would have been saved from the errors of Islam. Hopefully, he took my suggestions and picked up a copy of the New Catechism.

I am saddened by the fact that this diocese cares more about “inter-denominational” prayer meetings, which I have had the displeasure of attending, by the way, than keeping our Catholics in our Catholic churches… it reeks of indifferentism and egalitarianism. I had students at San G tell me they’re Catholic, and then say “Oh, but we go to Immanuel Baptist” or  “we go to Calvary chapel”… In these “prayer meetings” Our Roman Catholic bishop sits among the chairs of 15 other “clergy” from other faiths, as if, and perhaps it is not the intention, but if I was an ignorant Catholic in the pew, would think that implies that Catholicism is simply, one of the other equal ways to heaven. No… There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, and we must be clear on that. How, if any, are saved outside of the Church, is a matter for God’s judgment, and not ours. These are the errors which come out of the “false ecumenism” which is the ugly step-daughter of the “spirit of Vatican II”.

Simply put, if “ecumenism” does not have as its goal, the conversion of others, what good is it? Jesus said, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” He didn’t say “Go to all the nations and pray with them, and encourage their prayers to false gods, teaching them that all roads lead to heaven, and baptize them in the name of ecumenism, dialogue, and indifferentism.”

I went to the Catholic Family Conference and Fr. Donald Calloway reinforced these ideas. In fact he said, “It is not what we have in common that will bring us together, it is what we differ on which will bring us together… for when they accept what we differ on, which is at the heart of Catholicism, and accept Mary as their Mother, that is what will bring us together.”

What made the Catholic culture work 40 years ago, was not necessarily a mirror of today’s non-denominational fervor, generally I think that is only superficial anyway. In other words, the reason why these people are excited about our Lord is because it is a communal support system which permeates their Christian community. Why is it that most all Catholics who did go to Sunday Mass back then, also went to Mass on the weekdays? Not only that, they also attended devotions as a Church… It was because Catholicism was not just a religion, not just words in books, or candles being lit in dim churches… Catholicism was a culture, a way of life. The Church was the center of this culture, and specifically, it was the Eucharist, and thus the tabernacle was always in the center of it all (literally, and figuratively), at the heart of the Church. Now, the tabernacle is somewhere off to the side, and sometimes in different rooms, and what have we replaced it with? Some churches have replaced it with the chairs of the priests, or how ridiculous, silk plants… We have also taken down our Crucifixes which remind us of the cause of our salvation, and the true symbol of what the Mass is, the Sacrifice of Calvary. But, we replaced it with the “welcoming” and “inviting” resurrected Jesus. I suppose it is not bad, in itself. But it shows the shift of philosophy of the church, from sacrifice to acceptance where you stand. You heard those words lately, “unconditional love of God”. I have yet to find that in my Catechism. The only time something close to it appears, the unconditional love must come from us:

2466 In Jesus Christ, the whole of God's truth has been made manifest. "Full of grace and truth," he came as the "light of the world," he is the Truth. "Whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness." The disciple of Jesus continues in his word so as to know "the truth [that] will make you free" and that sanctifies. To follow Jesus is to live in "the Spirit of truth," whom the Father sends in his name and who leads "into all the truth." To his disciples Jesus teaches the unconditional love of truth: "Let what you say be simply 'Yes or No.'"

Come and visit San Secundo in Guasti one of these Sundays, and you will see this Catholic culture in action. It’s a beautiful thing. It’s a culture where everyone in the parish knows their role, and does their job. The parents teach their children how to be Catholics, not just the catechists. Imagine how much the pressure will be lessened on the individuals who run St. Adelaide’s if the parents simply knew what they were supposed to do. The parents should take responsibility because they constitute the domestic church. The children learn about God, first from them. And if they don’t get it from them, how can they get it from us? How do we change that? I don’t know. But, I am convinced it starts from the pulpit. Thank God, we have Fr. Gregory Elder. I’d rather have the fire lit under me now to get off my duff, than to get the fire lit under me in another way, for eternity. I am always reminded of one of the greatest and simplest things I heard preached by Fr. Ray Elam, he said “Don’t wait to repent tomorrow, when you can repent today, because quite honestly, you do not know if you will be here tomorrow.” Amen.

My gifts, are perhaps, to help a “conversion” of the mind…but what will truly change this world is a conversion of the heart. That can only come from on high…

Suggestions from my spiritual director:

1.                  Pray

2.                 Fast (or penance: give something up for a period of a few weeks)

3.                 Adoration

4.                 Daily Mass

5.                 Rosaries said for the “conversion of all sinner and all souls in Purgatory”

6.                 Angelus at 12 and 6

I think the rest will flow from one’s personal witness of the Gospel. But, if in future times, there is a desire for the local community to wish to understand the ins and outs of our faith more deeply, not just the spiritual questions, but the real tough questions, like “the problem of evil” or the challenges made by other Christian systems, I would be more than happy to teach such a class. That desire must come from the people, and not imposed on them. How that can be nurtured, I do not know.

Dominus Vobiscum,
Laurence

Does a Principle of Change and Progress Triumph over the Principles of Universality and Immutability of Morality and Truth?- A request to respond to User XSOXC

Kraig is RED, Laurence (Me) is in BLACK, and XSOXC is BLUE

hey! A friend of mine recently wrote a somewhat interesting article on religion- from a somewhat anti-christian perspective. I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on it.

The article is here- http://www.xanga.com/xsoxc/513928286/item.html

and my response is in my xanga, if you could comment on his article and my response i would enjoy hearing your thoughts.

Thanks!

-Kraig

Posted 7/31/2006 at 10:56 PM by holycrusader913

Long time no type, Kraig… Nice to see ya back!

I will try my best to comment, meaningfully. I will comment on your friend’s post first.

-LG

By User: xsoxc
Organized Religion is one thing that I have always been at odds with. It's something I've touched on, but never really fully explained my alternative. Humans have really found a way to be Spiritual through Psychology, so it has become a substitute for Religion; my substitute.

I have my degree in Psychology. Indeed it can be a “healthy” substitute for “religion”. But, I think it is a superficial substitute. One of my respected professors said in class once, the Psychologist has replaced the priest and the Confessional. Instead of the person confessing his sins to God, he confesses his “challenges” to his therapist. However, instead of receiving absolution from true guilt, the psychologist dishes out superficial absolution in the form of invented “disorders” which is the new phenomena to mask our culpability for our faults. That is, you don’t “steal” you are a “kleptomaniac” and you can’t help it. I suppose William James was the first man to marry religion and psychology together. Perhaps you would enjoy his work: Varieties of Religious Experience. I was an atheist when I bought into the spirituality of psychology, a predeterminist. I have also heard it said by Catholic philosopher, Dr. Peter Kreeft, that in a discipline which purports to give us a better understanding of ourselves, psychology that is, we have been growing further and further away from realizing our true identity, who we really are.

Why is this? I think because our true identity can only be discovered in whose likeness we are of. That is, we are made in the Imago Dei, the Image of God. To understand ourselves, we must try to understand who God is. It is in God’s Being, that we discover our being, our origins, our purpose, and our destiny. As the great St. Augustine wrote: “Oh God, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee” (Confessions, Chapter 1).

Religion implies Dogma. And it's true that it's a difficult subject. I've felt, for most of my life, frustrated with people who quote Scripture like it's a substitute for personality; like they're expressing their own personal note.

Well, I will never understand why modern man has distaste for “dogma”… Religion does not imply “dogma” necessarily (Buddhism doesn’t have “dogma”), I think, it implies Truth. Religion is a way we explain the universe. I just kind of chuckle when Christians tell me that Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship. As if, these two concepts are at odds. Christianity is a religion and it is a relationship. It is Truth which implies dogma. Why? Well, Truth  implies absolute principles, and absolute principles are what dogmas are. Take for example the dogma of the Trinity. That is an absolute principle, it must be believed by all Christians. I think the way we use Scripture, and how we strive to conform to it, is a window to our personality. Again, I don’t think these two concepts are opposed, Scripture quoting and personality.

Religion CAN be a vital guide for helping the individual to explore their true nature. OR, it can be just another limiting factor contributing toward narrow-mindedness and ego identification. The responsibility for inner growth lies WITHIN the individual.

Hmmm… Truth is a “narrow” principle… There’s a saying which makes a lot of sense to me… “Sometimes people are so ‘open minded’ that their brains fall out”… Intellectual evolution implies an acceptance of present conclusions, while abandoning the “possibilities”, so as to move on to higher truths to contemplate. Honestly, this culture of “open mindedness” is a cheap trick to fan the flames of indifferentism and relativism. Sorry, I don’t buy it. Think of the irony of “openness” in practice. Here is a principle which embraces “possibilities” and fears “narrowness” and then we get “narrow” explanations such as “ego identification”.

Furthermore, the responsibility for inner growth starts from within, I agree… But this doesn’t happen, if that is not enabled from on high. We need the grace of God to grow; otherwise, we shall always remain “spiritual dwarfs” as Cardinal Arinze once said.

Carl Jung said something along the lines that "Religion can be a block from true Spirituality". And I agree.

Well, I’d like an elaboration of these principles; seems like a vague maxim. Notice the leading terms “true spirituality”… as if, anything other than a non-religious world view is less than “true” or inferior.

One does not need to be Religious to be Spiritual. Conversely, Religious people are not necessarily (and are usually not) Spiritual. It's very apparent, if only you look at it from an extraneous standpoint.

A false dichotomy. I don’t understand why folks like pitting things which aren’t intended to be separate and making them opposites like positive and negative charges? Religiosity and spirituality are not philosophically opposed to one another. I would also ignore the generalization that the religious are not necessarily and usually not spiritual. I think definitions are important.

If you ask a Religious person what their definition of "Spirituality" is, it usually has nothing to do with fulfilling their own desires and keeping themselves at peace, but rather they view it is a Connection between themselves and one ultimate Power.

Ah, we have discovered the root of this dialogue. I will not tackle this issue. Suffice it to say, this is the direction of modernism and the New Age… Spirituality has become a religion of self-worship and self improvement, and no longer a transcendent meeting with the Divine. We can see this in the philosophy of hedonism and utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. We know what St. Paul talks about when we have decided to worship the creature instead of the Creator.

While there is obviously no "Better" definition, I think it's interesting how selfless Religious people can be. I don't mean "selfless" as meaning "selfish", as obviously Religious people can be some of the most considerate and helpful people on the planet. What I mean by "selfless", is that their interpretation of life is not their own. Many are not themselves - many have no selves.

I don’t presume to ever delude myself of these meaningless psychological terminologies any longer… The stereotypes of psych majors are so true, and when I realized that in myself, I knew I had to abandon this philosophy. We get so caught up in these theoretical paradigms of men and then attempt to apply those insights, not discovered by us mind you, but out of the imaginative canvas of Freuds and Jungs, to every person we meet. It gets ridiculous. If this doesn’t make any sense, ask yourself this. What in the world does this mean: “Many are not themselves-many have no selves”?

Let’s bring this out of the clouds of theoretical and figurative psychology and bring as back to practical psychology. What is the self? The “I”, the sum of all our characteristics which we have accepted as defining who we are. We begin to understand the “self” once we start realizing that that person in the mirror is “me” and not the ball over there. This self image changes, it always does, and it may even change in a 10 minute period. So, it is meaningless to say we are “not ourselves” or we “have no selves”. Why? Because we are constantly changing, and to define ourselves as a definitive “self” is futile. Granted, “traits” tend to be consistent, but “states” are always changing. And I don’t know how having “no self” manifests itself. Even if one proposes that he “doesn’t know who he is” is affirming his status as a “self, seeking meaning”… Anyway, the point is, these are opinions. That’s the beauty of psychology, it’s not a science, it is a Humanities and a philosophy. If it’s all gibberish to you, fine, toss it… it makes no difference.

But, when we talk about truth and God, that’s a whole different ball game. We have to try to be consistent and clear on how we approach those realities.

I suppose my Psychological detriment with Religion comes with the advent of the fact that, as I stated, the "meaning of life", and all of the modalities in which we live came from someone else, a book written 2000 years ago. Is there an original thought anywhere? Is there any self-interpretation? Any kind of Personality? Any kind of Individualism?

Yes… “I AM what I AM”…

Seemingly not. Of course, when going about normal and daily life, this concept isn't apparent. Of course these people have Personalities. But in the Spiritual realm, many do not seem Authentic. They live their lives regurgitating scripture and things that other people tell them, and never really stop and think "What do I think?" - "If I was never introduced to the Bible, or the Torah, or the Quoran, what would I think about Life?"

Well, the interesting thing when people are asked what they are seeking, they say “truth”… They sometimes fail to realize the implications of such a principle. Truth is a universal principle. That is, it matters not what you or I THINK about it, it just matters what IS… So, I think it’s a waste of time when people sit around and bathe in the sea of everyone’s thoughts and possibilities, when we can be spending our time searching for the correct philosophy. This is most clear and logical when coming from atheism, like I did. If what I think is all that mattered, I would have remained an atheist. But, guess what, if I wanted to commit a crime, I can’t because most of the population, for some reason, thinks that crime is “bad”. Why is something bad? Who told us it was bad? Was it some man’s idea?

Relgious people seem to me to be mediums of the Spiritual world. They are born, and learn information from their parents, that they believe to be true. They live life, and then pass the information that their parents gave them onto their kids, who will do the same for their kids. They lead a truly Spiritually Pointless existence. Is the meaning of your life is to Pass Down Information, then I suppose you've found your calling, otherwise- there's no development here- there's no change - there's no growth, there's nothing but passing aof  Relay Torch onto the next Generation; Tedium.

Lol… I don’t think anyone who is honest can say that science which has passed on the truths of the past, while discovering truths of the present, do not progress in future generations. Likewise, I don’t think any person of any religion will agree that if they look at the practice of their religion today, and the practice back 2000 years for example that it will look exactly the same in every way. If it did, I’d question the authenticity of that religion. Christianity was a seed 2000 years ago, and today it is a mighty oak. Same organism, different externals.

Truly, with Organized Religion, there is no Growth of Spirit. You can only do so much with a given amount of Information, and I view that as the Primary reason that Christianity, Judiasm and any kind of Organized Religion hasn't changed much over the past 1000 years, and the reason why it probably will not change any time in the near future. Of course, I'm not saying anything about the RIGHT-ness or WRONG-ness of Organized Religion. Hell, they might even be right.

I think this is a generalization of a person who hasn’t seriously studied or understood organized religion. Christianity has developed over time, and one need only turn to Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Secondly, there are aspects of the faith which must always stay the same. For if there was such a thing as revelation, from Jesus, let’s say… then on what authority can we add to that revelation? With all due respect, this commentator is applying a principle of necessary growth as a proof of authenticity, which is foreign to the nature of revelatory religion. In other words, religion is not what WE MAKE of it; it is what we have been GIVEN from our God.

But that's not the point. The point isn't about Right or Wrong. It's about Growth. Development. There's no Development with Organized Religon. I know what most Religious people would say right now. They'd say something along the lines of "But the point of life is to get closer to God, and to truly do his work tangibly" - you know, something like that. Sure, you can claim that you are doing good things for other people, and you probably ARE doing good things for other people, but YOU, YOURSELF are not Changing. There's no Growth. It's simply Congestion.

I would continue to dissent along the same lines as above. But picture this… for the sake of argument, life really was all about progress and development and growth. 5 years from now I will be making tons of money and get lots of stuff. Man will I be happy. I will retire early and travel the world. A couple more decades after that and guess what, at some point our life here on earth will come to an end. Where is this principle of growth and progress? I think he is applying a principle of growth as superior to religion, which he claims is always stagnant… Both philosophies work off of a priori assumptions of what the purpose of life is, and therefore one cannot be qualitatively compared to the other. The statement “growth is better than religion” is a belief you either accept or reject. You can’t prove that. It works off of the a priori assumption that growth is the meaning of life. The Christian says, that’s only part of it!

Problems are solved, but then there are more Problems. People are helped, but then more people need to be Helped. It's great to Help people, and I think that It's something that everyone should do for each other, every day of their lives. But Spirituality, I do not believe, Is simply about "Doing God's Work". In the midst of all the aggrandizing "Help" they're giving people, and all the canned Prayers and enigmatic Scriptures that MUST be true, where is the Development?

Assumptions… It’s a very materialistic principle that all reality is material. No, sir. The Christian works off of some other presuppositions. We have a dualistic nature, body and soul. Our good works in this world is our process of Justification and Sanctification, and therefore, through the infusion of God’s sanctifying grace, we are made righteous from the inside out… That’s sounds like “progress” to me.

It's our duty as Human Beings to help each other, to further our communities and growth as a species, as well as how it pertains to our grasp of the existence of a Higher Power. It's our duty as Spiritual Beings to further our connection with the nature of our existence with our own personal selves. The former (the concept of "Spiritual Beings") is a facet that most Organized Religions, with the exception of Buddhism and Taoism lack, or only very briefly touch upon. If a Spiritual self-connection is mentioned in most Organized Religion, it usually always involves a connection with God. True Spiritualism, in my eyes,  is a connection with yourself.

Again, when man no longer gazes up to the Heavens for the answer to their life’s existence, but instead reaches for the mirror, I believe we have already made a grave error. We didn’t create ourselves. So, already we are asking answers from a source who only knows half of the truth. Consider this… when you are having trouble with customer service, who do you ask for? The manager; why? Because that person has more answers… and if he/she cant help you? District manager. You get the idea. But when we have stopped at the person mopping the bathroom floor (us) and refer all our questions to that level in the chain of command, we will never get anywhere.

What is the Ultimate act of Spirituality for a Religious person? Ask most, and it will be something like "Feeling an extreme connection with God". That's great. The problem I have here, Is that It's so Finite. There's an End of the line, and there should be no End of the Line - there should always be room to grow and develop and change into a better person. When you give finite solutions to infinite complexity, you're destroying a whole potential for an ever-changing persona that's not only beneficial for you, but for others, for the entire Human Race.

Again, this is so uncharacteristic of Christianity, I wonder if he really studied it or dismissed it all together. Jesus is the Truth, he said it Himself. Therefore, he doesn’t just have it, He IS the Truth. Hence the absolute Truth is not fully here with us to be grasped. We can only approach the infinite Truth in Heaven. So, I don’t think a Christian should say they “have” the truth, while they are still here on this earth. But, along the way, we grasp onto higher and higher degrees of truth. That is to be expected.

Religious People, for the most part, are considerate Beings. However, I have felt somewhat Emotionally disdained by some of them. It seems to me like some Religious people spend no time actually living life now, but are concerned with the ancient past (around the time where most Scripture was written), and the extreme future (as in, life after Death). There seems to be no constructiveness to the soul except for preparing for the afterlife.

We never get anywhere with generalizations. Especially when the Christians reading this know that this isn’t always true. At the same time, we can think of some examples of when it is true. But, even so, this exhibits the fallacy of composition. You cannot take the characteristics of a part and apply it to the whole. In other words, if you had a feather, which is described as “light”, you cannot apply that same principle to a room filled to the top with feathers, which would be “heavy”. The “whole” does not necessarily share the same characteristic as the “part”.

I feel like some Christians, metaphorically speaking, don't value me, or anyone but themselves as a true Person. They make me feel like I am only some kind of a pawn in their "Paths to God". They make me feel like a medium, like a toy, a stepping-stone. Ultra-Religious people make me feel like they would literally murder me if their pastor/rabbi/priest told them to. They make me feel like the only purpose I serve in their life is to further them "closer to God". Nobody wants to feel like that.

I am sorry that your experience with the “religious” is such as you described. It’s a tragic reality, and they will answer for their actions in due time. Every single person on this planet has value and has dignity, whether they are Christian or not. I would look up a work available online called Evangelium Vitae or “The Gospel of Life” to illustrate this value for every human life, even the unborn.

But finally, I would like to point out that I'm not preaching a Dogma here. I'm simply stating how the system of Organized Religion conflicts with my convictions of life, and why I view it as a Spiritual block. There is a stark difference between a Religious person's definition of Spiritual and a non-Religious person's. Hopefully I've made the subversive nature of this clear: A Religious person's definition of Spirituality is Finite, while most non-Religious people's is Infinite. There is no Right Definition. Truly, the word "Finite" seems derogatory and condescending, however, remember that it has no subterfuged jab.

The irony is troubling to your position. Definitions are intrinsically finite and “narrow”… Yet you have characterized the “religious” person as having a “finite spirituality”. I am sorry, I beg to defer. I don’t think for one second religious spirituality is finite. Why? Because in Christian prayer, in Christian Spirituality, we do not meditate on ourselves, a finite being, we meditate on God, the Infinite being. So, it seems to me, using your own terms and in the context of how you describe “non-religious spirituality”, it would seem that the “religious” are actually the opposite of your characterization.

However, most Christians, Jews and Muslims alike would agree that "God is Infinite". I agree - the Higher Power may be infinite, but the room that your Doctrinal Views of approaching Spirituality and Faith leave for change and development truly are very Finite (If not non-existent). Dogmatic Religions don't leave any kind of room for new information, new sociological developments, new cultures. This is the reason that many of our social systems are so backwards, why sometimes you feel like you are living 600 years ago: Because the way most people approach their faith is 600 years old.

Truth never changes, I hope you realize this. You are applying a principle of “change” to a paradigm which by its very nature cannot change. Morality and truth cannot change. The accidental practice of the faith MAY change, for instance, the ways we pray, styles of architecture changes… The content can never change. It’s as if you are saying mathematicians are too “finite” and “narrow” because they haven’t found out other ways of getting 2+2… You just can’t improve on absolute truth.

In addition, the "Finite Spirituality" seems to be the more Logical of the two- However, we have to remember that ANY kind of Religion and ANY kind of Spirituality is not based on Logic whatsover. There is no Logic to your concept of God, nor is there any logic to my concept of Spiritualism. But we as Humans almost intuitively know that there's something more, something that logic can't explain; something too complex. Maybe it's our need to feel like we are not worthless, pointless groups of chemicals floating around in nothingness, or maybe there truly is something more.

Amen. Some ground for dialogue. I would reflect upon a synthesis on many of your many dichotomies you drew in your essay. All of them can be synthesized, and in fact, I believe have always been synthesized to formulate a cohesive religious system. For example, your last paragraph talked about logic which is like “reason”. Then it talked about “intuition” which can be likened to “faith”… We must have both if we ever desire to form a cohesive Christian spirituality. Proof? This is what the late Pope John Paul II wrote:

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (Fides et Ratio, Faith and Reason)

God be with you…

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Laurence A. Gonzaga