Are there lines beyond which a Catholic cannot step and still be Catholic? And, to enlarge this consideration, for our many non-Catholic Christian participants, are there lines beyond which a Christian cannot step and still be Christian?

To stimulate discussion, I recommend Andrew Greeley's Essential Catechism.
One may wish to give this exercise a try prior to peeking at Greeley's answers.

pax,
jb

I had technical trouble hyperlinking to another relevant discussion, using the ubb code, so click on Ricahrd's McBrien's answer and then click on the link that appears. This will take one to a concise but depthful article.

pax, amor et bonum
jb

I followed that link, read the material, and am quite sure that many people might feel uncomfortable with such clearly-stated ideas and distinctions. They require perhaps a bit more submitting than people would like to consciously do nowadays � in my humble opinion, of course. You are undoubtedly in much closer contact with other Catholics and their ideas and other Christian denominations and their ideas. Did you start this thread because so many of these distinctions are being lost, blurred or re-defined?

I've generally appreciated Andrew Greely's non-fiction/theology/sociological analyses (his novels are crappola, imo), and so a brief glance at his Essential Catechism looks promising. I'll have to pass that one on to Arraj, who was hoping to do something similar, but may now find that he has more time for other pursuits (not likely, I know: he *wants* to do that simple catechism).

McBrien's statements look good to me, but I think there's more to it than he posits. E.g., notably lacking in his list was any reference to the Magisterium; I don't know how one gets around that . . . how all those other boundary statements become affirmed in the absence of recognized teaching authority. I also disagree with him about the importance of the universal Catechism. It's a wonderful reference, quite frankly, non-inclusive language (deliberately done that way) notwithstanding.

It really is important to have a sense of what are the essential Catholic and Christian beliefs. Without this, people go off saying things about Hindu yogi, Buddhists, and agnostic humanitarians really being Christians and other such nonsense. On the positive side, these affirmations help to form one's faith-receptivity in a distinctively Catholic manner.

Interesting question. I'd say, when you really encounter Jesus as he is, and approaching God as he is, without preconceptions or expectations, you might start falling out of Cathoicism and/or Christianity, as they're understood in terms of apologetics and dogma. At least, that's what happened to me.

So many of the great mystics have had to hedge their discussions and self-censor their writings to avoid condemnation.

jon

Jon, I think I know what you're getting at, especially if you mean to say that one's relationship with God does not proceed from apologetic arguments and reflections on dogma. Is that what you're suggesting? If so, can you still see some value in dogma?

If this is the Jon I'm recalling, then I suspect, if he's still hanging around the boards, that he'll answer affirmatively but qualifiedly. My feeble recollection is that his material on his website was very much edifying, generous in its depth of personal sharing, too. To the extent that once one has encountered the Person to Whom the "Law" is leading and to Whom the dogma is pointing, then, assuredly, a will surrendered in love won't need signposts and lawbooks. My problem is in surrendering and thus my encounters need the props of law and dogma and not just prayer and liturgy. As they say, though, we'll get taken down the path to our God and eventually meet Him via cooperation with the Law or will meet Her via our cooperation with Grace. I've been coerced by and cooperated with Both, a remain so.

I hope I said all this right. Jon, could you repost your website url (if I recall you correctly, that is).

Many of the mystics did not escape persecution but were vindicated centuries later. There IS a lesson there. It's not always the dogma or the law per se but the misinterpretations thereof by mean-spirited zealots.

pax,
jb