Skip to main content

I've Added A New Read

I have a "virtual" friend; her name is Nicole. I'm not sure even how we are connected. If I should know, I don't remember. I blame Confirmation Sponsor Guy, and his merry band of...whatever they are. And I blame another friend, whom I shall christen "Lake McWheels," and trust he is not offended. Catholics find each other, and we don't even care how random it is. I digress.

What I mean to say is that Nicole here is a wise lady, and a darn good writer. God must be at work, and Mrs. DeMille must be pretty close to Him, (or at least on the way) because I'm pretty sure I'd not be handling her crosses as well as she does. That will embarrass her, and she will deny it. I say, "Humor me, lady. They tell me they're glad I get out at all." Sidebar: I usually take that stuff in stride, but I sense that some people aren't just uncomfortable; they don't respect me, and this is a way to do that while appearing kind. Moving on.

Well, sort of. That's probably the worst thing that anyone could say, (that they don't respect me) if someone did in fact say it. I am the king of destroying myself for a few laughs. It's not even a huge deal, because gentle mockery expresses fondness, and my friends know this. I am both vulnerable, and very proud. Anything that approaches humility in me was imposed from outside. That's the truth. I am glad I don't know what people think about me, unless they tell me. It would probably destroy me, like it would for most of us.

I take it back: Not everyone's bad opinion matters; just people whose opinion I respect. I'd rather you kill me than tell me this. Those wounds are the worst. I lose respect for myself from time to time, and that's good, because I come to God for my meaning and true worth, not to mention rebuilding, as it were. But D^%*, lose a true friend, lose respect, maybe never get it back, and then you can tell me how hard life is. Rant over. My apologies.

Lord Jesus, I give You my anger, sadness, and true sorrow over this old hurt, which You know. You know that I desire to forgive and be forgiven. One day, it will come. Until then, give me some small measure of peace. Amen.

Anyway, I'm proud to add Nicole's blog to those which you may peruse when you realize that this blog sucks. [Can a Catholic who aspires to sainthood say, "sucks"?--ed.] I don't know. Can a Christian who knows he should be Catholic and refuses to do it count on God's mercy? [You just watch it, buddy.--ed.] Just sayin'. Time to decide. It's actually the question of the century: "What is the Church, and am I in it?" And for the record, I'm not an apologist. I'm a snark-pologist. CtC wants to think you into the Church, and love you in. I am not that guy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un