You seem to draw more on the Feeling than the act of prejudice. Jesus commanded his apostles to baptize converts and to spread his gospels indeed. By praying for those who have not yet found Jesus, is certainly a good gesture not insensitive, as this is what Christ taught, but we certainly cannot be forceful of imposing our belief onto others, then we would be insensitive. Understand the differences.
I think we must be open to the idea that no two people who walk on this earth own the same attitude in life and persona, and we need to respect that. As Christians, using Christ as our example, he never excluded anyone, and so it would be fitting to practice this if we, like you, are to quote word for word the letters from the Gospels.
Christ was about truth, God was about feelings and truth - he became man to experience and teach us, and yes, and he had people’s feelings at heart. If he didn’t, would he be bothered at Cana if he had no feelings for his mother? Would he cure the lame, sick, the crippled or the blind? Would he resurrect Lazarus if Martha were not to ask him? Besides the other explanations, Jesus bore all these into context.
We accept the teachings of Rome due to the words spoken by Jesus to St. Peter. Unfortunately many “Holy” men has not acted upon the Holy Spirit appropriately– a church divided within; hence it is retrogressing in the hope to rekindle the days of before Vatican II. You probably one of them who wish this never came to be.
If you read the laity`s post in context, then “anger” would be over-bearing. RS states the faithful needs to engage, whether good or bad, the responsibility is on all to protect the Blessed Sacrament.
If the Pontiff were to instruct that all men masturbating be excommunicated - would you come forward and repent or admit? or all homosexuals, priest alike, to stop Celebrating Mass? would you be first in line? Ponder on that…
Some things work on principles, some on the stability of the organization and others on feelings. All of this affects the inner-workings of the Church, Period.
Regarding “AND”, it is poor sentence structure. If you didn’t know that, perhaps a crash course in English would do you good.
In any case, let’s question what the paedophilia did for the American church? Did it lead more Catholics home or astray? Astray, I’m sure. Hence most of your churches are lacking in parishioners. This I know.
So concerning themselves about grammatical issues does not do the trick, does it? Assuring people of Gods saving grace, his love and your commitment towards him and your neighbors would certainly gather more Catholics than concerning yourselves with words (of similar meaning) that Catholics give two hoots about. So how “seen and unseen” can lead Catholics away - I am yet to see, or would you write me a thesis on the subject that can only be proven in theory? Think about it.
I think what you are trying to do by quoting certain sections in my response, regarding the Eucharist, is really tacky. When speaking in a Catholic context, I would certainly not mean Protestants, but you dont see this, do you? Oh I forgot, everything becomes an attack on Rome.
So we should be like the Chinese, governed by our leaders, where we are not to think or do things without consulting Rome. Unfortunately we don’t live in your world, or in the Dark Ages. I would like to believe that we belong to a church that understands modern life, a shift very similar to that of the renaissanse. So RS grants us that opportunity to engage and reason with Rome.
So I repeat: I think the church leaders are way too concerned with grammatical issues than it is to lead people closer to God. The role of the church is not to condemn, question, impose prejudice and isolate people, but to unite them by their virtue as Christians.
We are united by the Eucharist, not by words and its complex meaning, though this aids our faith and gives it deeper meaning.