Tags
Apostles, Catholic Church, church, church unity, controversy, Grace, history, St Paul
The homily given by the Pope on 25 January echoed the words of Paul here. How weak we are in the face of the wiles of the enemy. Moments in time after Paul had preached there, and with the Apostles available, the men and women of Corinth had managed to set up factions in which they made claims for Paul, or another Christian leader, Apollos, or for Peter (Cehpas); worst of all some claimed alone to be ‘of Christ’. As St John Chrysostom pointed out, this was a great scandal since they made baptism, the point of unity, the cause of division.
Origen pointed out, in words which resonate as much with us as they did when he wrote them in the second century, that the Church is a mixed body which contains the righteous and the unrighteous; this is why Paul praises some members and criticises others. The person who agrees with right doctrine and the teaching of the church concerning the Trinity, and with the Creed, is not in schism. That was easier to say in his day than it is in ours, when we have a number of Churches who can say they preserve right doctrine and believe in the Creed, and yet are still not united and say that they are ‘of Peter’ or of ‘Constantinople’, or of ‘Luther’ and of ‘Calvin’ and claim for themselves the name ‘Christian’ which some of them would arrogate to themselves alone. It was then, as the Pope says it is now:
In other words, the particular experience of each individual, or an attachment to certain significant persons in the community, had become a yardstick for judging the faith of others.
The Holy Father rightly asks:
may we realize that Christ, who cannot be divided, wants to draw us to himself, to the sentiments of his heart, to his complete and confident surrender into the hands of the Father, to his radical self-emptying for love of humanity. Christ alone can be the principle, the cause and the driving force behind our unity.
He is right, and in Pauline mode when he points out:
Our divisions wound Christ’s body, they impair the witness which we are called to give to him before the world. The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, appealing to the text of Saint Paul which we have reflected on, significantly states: “Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communities present themselves to people as the true inheritance of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but they differ in outlook and go their different ways, as if Christ were divided”. And the Council continues: “Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the sacred cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 1)
There is no doubt, as even readers of the comments boxes here know, that this division damages us; it makes us all a scandal in the eyes of the world, and asks us all to look again at what divides us – as well as what unites us – Christ Jesus.
Pope Francis does not ignore the place of the Papacy in these divisions, but, referring to three of of his four predecessors says:
The work of these, my predecessors, enabled ecumenical dialogue to become an essential dimension of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, so that today the Petrine ministry cannot be fully understood without this openness to dialogue with all believers in Christ. We can say also that the journey of ecumenism has allowed us to come to a deeper understanding of the ministry of the Successor of Peter, and we must be confident that it will continue to do so in the future.
There is only one Christian leader who can command the attention of the world every time he speaks, and only one who can speak for the majority of the world’s Christians, and if he will not talk to others, then unity has no hope. But unity requires others to talk, and, of course, for the Pope to listen as well as talk.
Can there really be unity? We have Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, but we know from Clement’s letter to them, written probably before the end of the first century, that they had once more lapsed into quarrelling with each other; jealousy and envy had even led to the deaths of the Apostles, Peter and Paul. What happened to the church in Corinth is lost in the mists of history, but where it could have been a noble example of Christians pulling together in the cause of Christ, it disappears from the scene; the answer is not far to seek.
We have not been good at learning the lessons of history, and no impartial historian can absolve ‘The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome’ from its part in the scandal of division. Pope Francis, like his immediate predecessors is determined to do what he can in the cause of unity. Are such hopes doomed? Not if we believe St Paul:
Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
All Along the Watchtower 
I believe that Paul prophesied in Ephesians 4:13 that we would one day come to ‘the unity of faith’, and I dare to believe that that means before Christ’s return, rather than in heaven after our resurrection. but we must be of faith, Hope and boldness and charity to come to this point. thank you for this post, Chalcedon.
LikeLike
Thank you, Nicholas.
LikeLike
The letter was probably written in the 50s, and from what Paul is saying, I cannot see that there was any sort of ‘unity’, still less a ‘perfected’ one, and the behaviour he criticises does not suggest much by way of maturity. As it is Jesus who talks about unity and the Holy Ghost who will promote it, I am not sure why you deny them and their claims.
LikeLike
Paul’s letter shows, as does 2 Corinthians, that there were the sort of serious divisions with which we are familiar. I know no Protestant who is the enemy of Christ. If we think that, then we judge where we should stand in fear of judgment.
LikeLike
By that token, I can only say that I was not, I was a believer who saw only part of the truth – but it helped lead me to where its fullness lay. I am sure that being told I was an enemy of Christ would simply have turned me from the Church.
LikeLike
You seem to me to be doing what Bosco does – generalising from your own experience. God draws us in many ways, and what works for one does not alays work for another.
LikeLike
The Church continues to win converts, and I don’t think it tells anyone that they are right to be outside it. But telling those outside it that they are damned is as effective as Bosco telling you and I we are not saved.
LikeLike
And it is how we hasten that process which is important. I doubt that for most it helps telling them they are heretics and enemies of Christ.
LikeLike
The CC needs to do what it used to do to win converts. Kill the parents and raise the kids as catholic.
LikeLike
The policy of the CC has always been to kill and burn at the stake any one who is ruining the peace of this planet-especially the faith. Street Clown, you qualify!
LikeLike
It’s definitely quite a dilemma we are facing.
LikeLike
Since at least the Council of Ephesus we have proceeded by saying ‘x is not a true Christian – anathemata sit’ – and sometimes others have done the same to us. The result we see all around us. Corinth should be a warning – not an example to be followed with glee.
LikeLike
Which of our blessed fathers had you in mind? I rather favour the tactics of the most successful missionaries, and I doubt you will find they took this approach.
LikeLike
I do not disagree at all. I think we have had successful missions in all parts of the world – thank God, as we may need some of those converts to come here and correct our errors and supply our deficiencies.
LikeLike
In this world there always will be – but if it holds the seed of growth, we should not be quick to extirpate it for fear we throw out the baby with the bath-water.
LikeLike
If we do not plant, there will be no harvest.
LikeLike
The Devil can do only that which God permits.
LikeLike
I fear so – but He has His reasons.
LikeLike
I thought that was the method we have all been trialling since AD 431? Its success seems questionable; its failure obvious.
LikeLike
We have been hurling anathemata at each other since at least 431, and by the 1960s most people could see the damage it was doing. I keep hearing the 1960s was a golden age, as one brought up in the 1950s, this passed me by. It was the clergy formed under Pius XI and XII who wanted the reforms. To attribute to an Ecumenical Council what is rightly to attributed to developments in Western Society as a whole is surely to misdiagnose the problem? Do you suppose that the Church could somehow have avoided being effected? Many of those who left in the 1960s and 1970s were those who had entered religious orders under the old order, so one can hardly argue that the 1950s was a golden age.
LikeLike
Because in every age it has been, The Church is all of us, and we are affected by it; had we Christ in our hearts, that would not be so.
What we saw in the 1960s and 1970s was what lay behind the whited sepulcre of the the 1950s. We were proud and vain – and we have been, are being, and shall be, corrected.
LikeLike
Because I don’t believe any new principles were enunciated at the second Vatican Council.
The Fathers there were asking themselves, as we should ask ourselves, whether the division amongst us is a scandal – it is, and it needs to be healed.
It won’t do to simply hurl anathemata. We did that to the Orthodox – and all it did was to divide Christendom fatally. The Orthodox are not heretics, and our treating them as though they were caused schism – the sin is great.
LikeLike
The difficulty with this is that it was Rome which excommunicated the Patriarch in the most stupid and rude way possible – putting an anathema on the high altar on Easter Sunday. That was the height of stupidity and the cause of the actual breach. If you wish to defend that, good luck with it, as it is, in my view and that of many, indefensible.
Yes, the East has had its trials, and its liturgical services are superior to those in most Catholic Churches, and its spirituality often more serious, having been tested.
I do not presume to doubt what God’s Vicar, John Paul II has said on this issue, or doubt, as the CDF has said, that the Orthodox are Christians with valid orders. The Church has lifted the anathemata.
LikeLike
The schism certainly exists, but it is not correct to call the Orthodox heretics neither has the Church said de facto heresy exists.
If, as it has, the Church has declared John Paul blessed, then he is neither of the things which you call him.
LikeLike
Our own Church has such people within it; it would be as wrong to condemn all of us for their failures, as it is to do that for all Orthodox.
If I have to choose between the view of the Church on John Paul, and your own view, I am bound to accept the Church.
LikeLike
Where in scripture or cannon does it give you as an individual the right to judge and convict those placed in authority over you??? For that matter where does it give you as an individual the right to judge anybody and declare how things should specifically be done. I do not see the fruit of humility in your statements, I see the fruit of pride. I do not judge you, because I have suffered from the same ailments, I warn you because as you are well aware there are consequences to inappropriate actions unless one repents.
LikeLike
These are texts used to justify every act of disobedience against the Church.
LikeLike
There is no doubt of it. But we should be very careful indeed before we take it upon ourselves to say that the Magisterium has fallen under satan’s sway.
LikeLike
I do not think we can do that. We cannot, in defiance of the Magisterium take it upon ourselves to say what is and is not the view of the Catholic Church. That does seem a Protestant mindset.
LikeLike
You seem to be suggesting that the Church can never change its view, which is not the case, as pancakesandwildhoney has pointed out. The Church makes the best discernment it can. If the same body which says x later says not x, is it not entitled to do so without being accused of being a different body?
There is no rupture, there is development. After all, at one point the Church said the filioque was wrong and later adopted it. Does that mean it ceased to be the Church?
One either accepts that the Magisterium is allowed to state what is and is not Catholic teaching, or one says it is only allowed to stick with what it once said and may never, in any circumstances, admit that it knows more now than it did then. That last would be an odd position.
LikeLike
That depends on what you classify as such. It rejected the filioque at one point and accepted it later. Was that a change of mind?
LikeLike
It did reject it – or at least Leo III did so. I don’t usually cite wikipedia, but this one here is based on good historical sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Filioque_controversy
As the Athanasian Creed does not deal with the question of the procession of the Spirit, I cannot see how it explicitly allows the filioque.
LikeLike
But it says nothing about Him proceeding from the Son.
LikeLike
No, it says he is proceeding, without stating from whom.
LikeLike
But technically it leaves open the question of whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father or from both. That is why this had remained such an active issue.
LikeLike
The problem is that theologians of great eminence disagree.
LikeLike
Both, although the Catholic ones acknowledge we are right. But they see why the Orthodox take the view they do.
LikeLike
If the Magisterium sees no contradiction where you or I see one, is that our fault or is it at fault? I know what I promised when I was received into the Church, and it was not to hold and believe everything I thought was catholic against the Magisterium’s definition of the same.
LikeLike
Yet the Church recognised him as such. Those qualified to make these decisions did so. Therefore you are saying you know better than the Magisterium, indeed, that you are qualified to say who is and is not the Magisterium. That is not how the Catholic Church proceeds.
LikeLike
Jesus said that not even the Gates of Hell would prevail, and I do not think that the Magisterium can fail as you seem to think. Either the Pope is who the Church says he is, or the Church is in error. To say that some body is the ‘real’ church is easy enough, but so say all heretics, surely?
LikeLike
Since the Pope pronounces on faith and morals, he is either the Pope or he is not, There is no other answer.
LikeLike
Nowhere is it Catholic teaching that we take some kind of consensus of the Fathers. For one thing, there is no agreed list, neither is there an agreement amongst them on all things. None of us is authorised to say that what the Magisterium has done is wrong.
Those who say they have that right are in danger of causing schism, and they certainly occasion scandal, and it they cause doubt in the minds of the faithful, and if they encourage disunion, then they end in a place little better than Luther. Where is the obedience in insisting that the Pope is wrong but we are right?
LikeLike
The judgment of those qualified to make that decision differs from yours. They are set in authority above us. You can say they are wrong, in which case you are saying you have the right to judge who is rightfully set in authority. If that were so, what stands between the church and chaos?
LikeLike
Not if the result is to set your intellect up as an authority to judge the Magisterium.
LikeLike
In which case you are judging it and saying it is not the Magusterium. That is effectively declaring another Magusterium. No individual Catholic has such a right.
LikeLike
You are saying what all dices an bishops and all cardinals call the Magisterium is not – which is to say you know better than everyone except a small group of bishops who have no diocese.
LikeLike
If one is not in communion with the bishop of Rome, then great harm will follow.
LikeLike
If one seeks to avoid being in that situation by claiming one knows who is and is not the Pope, does that make it better?
LikeLike
Did any heretic ever say otherwise?
LikeLike
I have not said you are a heretic – just that your excuses are the ones used by them.
LikeLike
It is important to remember what Pope Benedict says here:
‘In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.’
LikeLike
I see no evil in you; I see a zeal for what is true. But sometimes we need to temper zeal with compassion.
LikeLike
Paul sets is good examples of how to proceed – and he does not spare the rod when necessary; but if there is nothing but rod, it becomes ineffective.
LikeLike
Your zeal is great and commendable – but do not let it swamp obedience.
LikeLike
Obedience to what one approves of oneself is no obedience, it is merely an act of self-satisfaction, surely?
LikeLike
The difficulty here is that denying these men are one’s duly appointed superiors is always going to be a good way of saying I am obedient to that which I wish to obey.
I do not say you do that, but I do say that it is what many who wish to follow their own reasoning do. How shall we know who is the Pope? By his election by the Cardinals. This Pope is the Pope, and if I do not like him, then I have a choice; but to say he is not the Pope and I know better is not one of them, not for me.
LikeLike
But who defines heresy? If you think you are competent to and to judge the Pope, then that opens the door to chaos.
LikeLike
It is always viable, and I have never known anyone to say they were not sincere. Luther was sincere.
You are not authorised to say who is and who is not an heretic. Were that the case, every time we disagreed with our bishop we could say he was a heretic – we could end up with millions of churches and become Protestants.
LikeLike
I follow those set in authority in obedience. But I do wonder whether saying they are not the real authority justifies my preferring my views?
LikeLike
You use your own judgement to say that the Magisterium is not what the Church has accepted.
LikeLike
That is not what the Church you and I joined teaches.
LikeLike
The Church recognises it as an ecumenical council. So do I.
LikeLike
No, because as you say, it passed nothing dogmatic.
LikeLike
Since it does not pronounce on such matters, they have no occasion to consult it for them, surely? But it is an ecumenical council and we are bound to respect it as such.
LikeLike
I am bound to believe what the Catholic Church believes, as you are if you are a Catholic. The Catholic Church declares his is blessed. I believe the Catholic Church; do you do so only when it agrees with your views?
LikeLike
If you would like to give me the references to those authorised by the Magisterium condemning the Blessed John Paul II, it would help. The Church has a Magisterium, and no single bishop speaks for it, not even a group. Those who have condemned the Blessed John Paul are not the Mgisterium. I agree with the Catholic Church when it speaks through the Magisterium, as I am bound to. Do you?
LikeLike
What I mean is that the Church has a Magisterium which is the only body authorised to issue such statements with authority. We either believe that, or we are not Catholics.
LikeLike
Well, since they are recognised by the Church as such, and since the Pope is the duly elected successor of St Peter, they are the Magisterium. I know no lawful other.
LikeLike
In this instance, as with the last two Popes, this is not the case, and the fact that these hypothetical cases have never happened says something important.
You may not approve of what these Popes have done, and I have my own reservations about two of the last three, but they are the Pope, I am not, and I am not more Catholic than they are, so I obey, as my vow at my reception into the Church obliges me to do.
LikeLike
And these ‘great many people’ are authorised by the Church to pronounce on such matters with authority? Of course they aren’t. They are schismatics and as such to be avoided.
LikeLike
His situation was not ours. Who is the alternative Pope to Francis? The throne of Peter cannot be empty.
LikeLike
And a successor is always elected. When was the last time it had no occupant for nearly sixty years?
LikeLike
But the See was occupied – even though there was more than one claimant. Those set in authority recognise the Pope as the Pope.
LikeLike
No, but Athanasius was supported by the Pope; you are not.
LikeLike
As he spent time in Gaul, he had reason to know otherwise. Athabasius was a patriarch, I would be careful before comparing my personal dissent with his.
LikeLike
Athanasius was a Patriarch with huge support in his own part if the Church – this is true of nether of us.
LikeLike
the disorder of creedal christians. the ecumenical council must have the bishop of rome otherwise, it is not an ecumenical council. the last ecumenical council was vatican ii.
“A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.” (lumen gentum, 22)
paragraph 15 means i’m not a christian yet having not been baptized.
LikeLike
You have a baptism of desire. But it would be better for you were you able to be baptised. The Church does recognise a baptism of desire, but if you are able,one day, to join it, it will baptise you first. The Orthodox Church would baptise and confirm you at the same time any way as it does not recognise Catholic or Protestant baptisms!
LikeLike
Yeah good brother quiav, lets get those heretics
LikeLike
In 1014, Benedict VIII, under pressure from Henry II, had the Creed, with the addition of Filioque, sung at Mass in Rome for the first time. It will be interesting to see whether Pope Francis marks the 1000th anniversary in some significant way (maybe along the lines suggested by Adam de Ville in Catholic World Report). My own view (for what it’s worth) is that it should be dropped completely.
LikeLike
It is clear that Orthodox theologians who understand what we mean by it are content, but if we mean by it what we do, we ought to be as content to let it go. The heresy against which it was meant to guard now takes different forms, and if we were to remove it, it would send a powerful signal.
LikeLike
The Nicene Creed does not contain the filioque and no Council ever approved of it. So to say that our version is that of the church is to ask what it was which approved the version the Orthodox use? They have not changed; we did. Why is it for the servant of the servants of God to insist that his change should remain, even though it causes division? Is that how Christ behaved?
If we continue to insist on everything being as we want, we simply show a want of humility and an abundance of pride.
LikeLike
The Church failed in humility and pastoral sense in proceeding as she did. She had the right to, but then as Paul reminds us, not everything that is lawful should be done. What they took offence at was the way in which sacred space and time was used to hurl an anathema at them; that really was most foolish. Again, the Pope had the right to do it, but we can see from the fruit of what he did why Paul is right to say that not all that if lawful should be done.
LikeLike
To believe that the Pope acted unwisely is simply to describe what was so.
LikeLike
The Church is not infallible in all its acts, and its acts here are rightly open to criticism, as it has recognised by withdrawing the anathemata. It is not sensible not to admit when you make a mistake.
LikeLike
The Church can err in its actions, and often has.
LikeLike
I would agree. It is the mark of the True Church that where it errs, it can say the sinner’s prayer. The Pope, and thus the Church, is infallible in certain areas and cannot err – and as none of that is true of me, I submit my judgment to that of the Church.
LikeLike
The individuals who make up the Church are sinners, it is the mark of a sinner that he sins. It is a mark of the Divine Origin of the Church that her leader, when properly recognised in due form, cannot err in matters of faith and morals; that is not to say he cannot make a mistake in the way he seeks to enforce these things.
LikeLike
Better to admit error than to pertinaciously persist in error. If you examine the Filioque question the Church changed its mind at least once.
LikeLike
No, He didn’t. His vicar did.
LikeLike
As the Vicar of Christ. How hard is it for a faith founded on repentance to practice it?
LikeLike
Individual members make wrong decisions, that is not the Church sinning, but it is fir the church to apologise fir errors committed in its name.
LikeLike
Is that really what Christ taught – or is it what the Pharisees teach?
LikeLike
God sent His Son to die upon the Cross to atone for our sins. The least we can do is apologise for our own.
LikeLike
No, the Church cannot sin, but it can apologise for the errors of those who serve it.
LikeLike
QVO, to your last point I would say that Popes often, as do all men, do things publicly that might be considered outside of the Church, such as our first Pope when he would not eat with the uncircumcised. That was a public display of something which he needed to be reminded of and thankfully was: but it did not reduce him to an anti-Pope and nullify his authority. There are degrees to such things that must be considered as do the circumstances that surround the events.
To be honest, I do not like the changes JPII made to the Canonization process or the shortcuts that Pope Francis is making to the Canonization of JPII and John XXIII. I think it muddles up our dependence on the Lord to show us who is a saint by the ‘old’ method of 1 miracle before death and 1 miracle after. But even so, I cannot say that the judgment will prove to be wrong. And I do believe that whatever is bound and loosed here by the Pope is bound and loosed in heaven. Now if history should prove these men to be anti-Popes etc. then we will also be bound by the Church to acknowledge such. But until such time, we have no other recourse than to obedience until and unless we are asked to do that which is in direct disobedience to our defined faith or our defined morals.
LikeLike
The Holy Father should celebrate the 1000th anniversary by burning a few bible believers, like they used to do.
LikeLike
You mean Bible “distorters”?
LikeLike
That Christ cannot be divided makes sense but I can’t imagine a oneness of apprehending Christ. There is one Christ but there are infinite lenses by which he is seen and not all calibrated with the same specs. Can it be that the one Christ has many facets ?
LikeLike
It is so, Carl, but the sooner we stop attacking each other, the sooner we unite against the real enemy.
LikeLike
And he is most dangerous of all when he tells us that by using harsh language about others who confess Christ, we are behaving as Christ would have us behave.
LikeLike
If you listen to this:
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia/frankish_christendom_and_the_estrangement_of_east_and_west_ii
you will understand how, when we rush to condemn others as heretics, it can create divisions in the Church. The Orthodox are not murdering anyone’s soul.
LikeLike
I hold what the Catholic Church holds, which is that they are in schism. It does not hold that they are heretics, as it has lifted those anathemata. If you are a Catholic, you hold the view of the Church, you do not tell the Church what its view ought to be.
LikeLike
There was a schizmatic under my bed the other day. I got a broom and flushed him out
LikeLike
This is a rather ticklish and nuanced problem that has no easy answers I’m afraid. QVO is right when he says that the letters cited were to a particular church and their divisions and not to those who were separated physically: a better word my be factions within the church. Now with VII we have stretched the original size of Church to include many others but were warned of a ‘false irenicism’ which, I wonder, if we have succumbed to during these last 50 years. I think following Mark’s advice above and changing our creed would be an example of such: especially after your post saying that the theologians have no problem with the Filioque at this point: it is rather almost political.
The most frightening example of modern ‘ecumenism’ I have read of as late comes from one of the Pope’s closest advisors and has stretched this effort to those ‘of the world’ rather than those of the church. I don’t know if you might have missed this statement during a talk of his:
“The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council”…Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga
Sounds like we have made peace with Modernism and are now proclaiming it as a great accomplishment.
LikeLike
There is no doubt that this is a difficult topic. But the Pope is right about the scandal caused by division. We are surely not called to be a small ‘pure’ remnant? Much, I think, depends here upon what one means by modernism. My own view is that the real unity will come when those who really believe in the historic creeds realise they have more in common with each other than one so-called Catholic has with another who is in favour of abortion, contraception and women priests 🙂
LikeLike
Well the last is certainly so, C. As to a small, pure remnant, I’m not so sure it will ever be ‘pure’ as we would like to hope.However, BXVI, indicated that he thought this was how it would be: whether we are ‘called’ to that or not. There is some indication, in Biblical exegesis, that this might be so. 🙂
LikeLike
The existing historical divisions are not, I think, accurate representations of what now divide us. There are people in the RC Church who seem to want it to be more like the Episcopal one, and vice-versa. We should all be happier were it possible to do a ‘swap’. Those who want a ‘church’ free of dogma and doctrine could all get together with ‘Farver Phil’ and those of us who don’t want that, would also be happier. I see so little difference between Jessica’s parish and my own that it is a tribute to the power of history that they are still divided.
LikeLike
In fact, from what Jessica has related about her parish (though one wonders if this is typical) you might say that her church is more Catholic that is my own parish.
I may be facing another sermon on syncretism from our stand in pastor today as our regular priest passed like week after losing his struggle with leukemia. May he rest in peace.
LikeLike
RIP.
Yes, her services are far more traditionally Catholic than the ones I attend. We had ‘Shine Jesus Shine’ as the recessional hymn – which works for me only as a penitential experience which is bad for my already bad blood pressure. I wish you joy of the homily 🙂
LikeLike
Thank you as I suppose this might help with my purgatory. 🙂
LikeLike
I am expecting time off for every line of ‘Shine Jesus Shine’. 🙂
LikeLike
As am I for the music, the homilies and the incessant talking, laughing and clapping. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, I think that should all be worth quite a lot 🙂
LikeLike
I do, quite seriously, think of the indignities that Christ endured and it helps put my indignity in its rightful place.
LikeLike
I do the same – and feel rightly ashamed.
LikeLike
But then, we are only human and don’t deal with distractions easily. It’s hard at times to keep our eye on the goal when you are straining to hear a prayer or attempting to find some interior place to dwell.
LikeLike
Very true. My own pet peeve is people blethering on before Mass. Our PP has had to upbraid the congregation more than once on this issue, alas.
LikeLike
These past 15 years or so, I’d say my priests have encouraged this ‘fellowship.’ No dignity left at my parish I’m afraid. Wm. F. Buckley’s brother, Reid, used to be a firebrand and walk out if a priest started with the silly stuff. Even he, has mellowed in his old age and simply sits there and endures. I think many of us feel like we were beat into submission at times.
LikeLike
Our PP is, rightly, fierce about it. We have plenty of time after Mass. Before Mass speak to God; at Mass, let Him speak to you; after Mass, speak to each other – a good motto.
LikeLike
I like it and wholly concur unless they start that talking to one another while others are making their thanksgiving. As we do not have a foyer in our Church it is almost impossible to get any post-liturgical prayers said. I have quit trying. At times I go around the side of the church to a memorial of my dear old friend and pastor and pray for him and as him to pray for me. That is about the extent of it these days.
LikeLike
Yes, I fear that where I am, the same is true – but I mind that less than the yattering beforehand 🙂
LikeLike
Quia, two points:
1), the Church has been provably wrong, the Church even admits as much. It has changed its mind about the soteriological status of Israel, the status of religious freedom as a universal human right, the conditional acceptability of usury, the equality of women to men, the unconditional evil of slavery, the death penalty for heresy, and mixed marriages to name a few. In fact, the equality of women to men also changed the Church’s position on marriage. For most of the tradition, the Church taught that the subjection of woman to man in marriage was divinely ordained and therefore unchangeable. Now, in a remarkable reversal of traditional teaching, the church teaches that marriage is a union of equals. What for hundreds of years the Church thought was a divinely commanded part of the natural law, it now rejects as an untruth, incompatible with human dignity.
Another example that is fairly recent is the CDF notifying Margaret Farley, one of the most highly regarded theologians of her generation, that her work, as the CDF said, “cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling or formation, or in ecumenical or interreligious dialogue.” This, despite her book Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics being a contemporary classic. A book that every Catholic ethicist reads. So, at one point Margaret’s methodology is a-okay, but then it is not? Huh?
2), would you apply your same hermeneutic to the magisterium’s change of opinion on issues like slavery? Magisterial acceptance of and support for slavery, like its endorsement of male headship, is much older than its condemnation of it. We can find many many more popes and bishops supporting and participating in slavery than we can find popes and bishops condemning it. Like papal support for sexual equality, papal condemnation of slavery is also very very new. So would you also say that recent condemnations of slavery represent a break with tradition (and therefore an act of disloyalty to it) rather than a continuation of it?
I’m trying to figure out what your method is here. It seems to be “whatever the church believed for the longest period of time.” Which is fine but then this would require you to support slavery, reject religious freedom, and even democracy.
Also, let us not forget what Paul said about being wrong, “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part…..For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” Or Aquinas: only God and the angels “have the entire knowledge of a thing at once and perfectly.”
I know that in the Catechism paragraph 889 it says the Church “under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, ‘unfailingly adheres to this faith.’” But “unfailingly adheres to the faith” is not the same as “has never made inaccurate moral judgments” and even if it did, we could very easily disprove that empirically.
God bless
LikeLike
heretics or Schismatics
I have witnessed so many people in all the denominations and in past history who live such kind and caring charitable lives and ministers of all faiths that seem so filled with the Holy Spirit and have brought millions to Christ that I am hard put to say that any of them deliver a false Gospel or are agents of Satan. The parishioners’ testimony is delivered in their conduct in daily living even though the orthodoxies are so varied and divergent.
When I read Eusebius he is very clear in identifying the thinking of the heresies(alleged), why they were heresies and how they were evaporated. But weren’t these people “in Christ” as exemplified in their commitment demonstrated as perhaps “visible saints” and as martyrs? Different groups did not have access to what are considered the canon. Some books were not available for geographical reasons so they used alternative scripture but was their faith therefore inadequate or heretical and unfounded? ? If Paul is murdered around 65 AD and some Gospel written after that are Paul’s assertions inadequate or false not being based on later scripture?
If the ancient people gave testimony by living in faith through non canonical books and alternative orthodoxies ,how can they be right or wrong Christians based on an orthodoxy as presented by men in embroidered bath robes and New Year’s Eve hats? In our time as well can their be right or wrong Christians determined by a particular ritual and a particular orthodoxy if they live Christian lives ? It seems the current pope(much to the chagrin of the traditionalists) is saying that there is legitimacy in pluralism.
LikeLike
Interesting thoughts and comments Carl. Much to think on here.
LikeLike
“. . . men in embroidered bath robes and New Year’s Eve hats.”
Carl, are you channeling Bosco now? 🙂
LikeLike
Ooops. Meant to be mischievous not disrespectful. Actually envious. Puritan/Presbyterians get only white collars and dour gray and black pants and coats. And we get to have only grape juice at the communion thing. And we are not allowed to hug people in public unless wife or children. And we get fined if we smile too much. Also knew I’d elicit a response. Tee hee.
LikeLike
No problem: I’ve been known to have mischievous side myself. 🙂
LikeLike
Costume holymen and the people who love them. Tonite on channel 2 at 7 PM
LikeLike
These “men in embroidered bath robes and New Year’s Eve hats” know a whale of a lot more theology, religion, history, and philosophy that you could ever dream of. It’s arrogance to assert the Pope can be wrong on any decree given from the chair. To assert that any Pope is incorrect or has made an incoherent decision when speaking ex cathedra is calling God’s true bride a liar. This is blasphemy.
LikeLike
I should add that as an oligarchical monarchy, the Pope is also backed by 200 other people equally qualified in theology, philosophy, religion, and history thereby keeping him balanced.
Now do you want to assert the Catholic Church is wrong on something?
LikeLike
One of your wonferful Holy fathers was killed when he was caught having sex with some mans wife.
For hes a golly good fellow, for hes a golly good fellow.
LikeLike
The founder of your false religion was beheaded for murdering numerous of the first century Christians including St. Stephen the Arch-deacon.
LikeLike
And if you reject St. Paul as the founder then we can go to the other founder of your idolatrous, paganized, non-Christian, Satanic, Luciferian, atheistic, cult that isn’t even good enough to be a kvlt and note that he will burn numerous people in Hell according to your religion for an eternity. All because he is egotistic, self-righteous, overly-zealous, puffed-up, misanthropic, sado-masochistic, and you didn’t believe in him.
LikeLike
Ah, Bosco, you mis-spelled “jolly”! Gee, you’ve been getting your arse kicked recently, haven’t you?
LikeLike
Bosco, you’re like that cockroach that keeps getting stepped on only it just won’t DIE!
LikeLike
Try burning me….The standard catholic response.
LikeLike
Really? When was the last time that happened Bosco? I think you will find it was back when they did all sorts of things like that, but not as far back as when the US penal system used to electrocute people.
LikeLike
No one CARES about Jesus! You know why? He DOESN’T exist! He’s a FRAUD!
LikeLike
Don’t let Bosco get to you. The reason there is so much energy expended on the subject is that even some atheists have an uneasy feeling Jesus does exist. If we made a better job of witnessing to him it would help.
LikeLike
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!
He’s so frustrating and hateful. I guess you may have seen I already lost it with him on another post.
LikeLike
I can see- and you would not be the first one. But try to think of him as a missionary who can’t quite work out how to witness, and if possible, try Jesus’ way of loving your enemies – not least as he isn’t your enemy, just maladroit. C
LikeLike
He’s no missionary. He’s a filthy animal. If I picture him as a missionary, then I must picture myself as the locals he’s trying to witness to. They have pitch-forks, bows, arrows, and torches in their hands. They have daggers as well and they’re culture also celebrates cannibalism.
LikeLike
I can, I think, understand something of your reaction – but try it the way I suggest – it will work better for you.
LikeLike
That’s the point. If I try the way you suggest, I end up not just wanting him removed from existence, I end up wanting to use him for lunch meat as well.
LikeLike
That might make him useful – for once. Bless him, he is doing what he thinks is right, but doesn’t seem to be able to see the effect he has.
LikeLike
>>>>>That might make him useful – for once.
thanks. you made me laugh just now.
LikeLike
Good. As Neo suggests, try not to let him get to you – and do remember it is Jessica’s place, and Neo’s right about the language 🙂
LikeLike
i make no promises other than to just try to control myself. it’s so hard and every time he comments, i just want to spill everything in my head at him.
if his jesus is real, hell would definitely be paradise compared to heaven.
LikeLike
He is the sort of advocate for Christianity Dawkins loves – that alone should give him pause for thought!
LikeLike
i blew up at him again…big time…
i’ll probably be banned but i don’t care…at least i won’t have to deal with bosco…
LikeLike
Jessica has responded. No one wishes to ban you, so we have simply removed the offending response. C
LikeLike
no matter. i’ve made the decision not to view your blog ever again until that clown leaves. i simply don’t feel like i’m in a safe environment here.
LikeLike
“oligarchical monarchy” see that’s the problem. Kinda like what was established by Caesar Augustus. Jesus passed down Keys not crowns. You see, Jesus is the bride not the church or leadership.
LikeLike
My error-Jesus not bride but bridegroom.
LikeLike
And who holds the keys?
I do believe it is Peter who handed it down to the eparchy of Rome which would ultimately become the Papacy. Face it Carl, you’re venting against people far more knowledgeable than either you or I. Just accept that they’re right, know what they’re talking about, and move on.
LikeLike
NEWENGLANDSON : Oh most certainly you are right that the Church Fathers of RCC and most of the participants here are far more knowledgeable than I. I do have BA religious studies with minor Am/Brit literature, a BA history with minor education, MA religious studies and MA Certified Holistic Addiction Professional with 33 years high school teaching in history -inner city, minority,violent, drug invested, low income. I am not qualified at all to participate in intra Catholic discussion as I know little doctrine of that community of believers. In contrast I do tow the Protestant line and perhaps not a matter of esoteric knowledge but a matter of different theology my church fathers being the likes of Calvin, Luther, Knox, Wesley, the Cottons, the Mathers, Roger Williams, Billy Graham and they are who I feel “are right”. Incidentally, I would never deny that the RCC has brought millions of people to Christ albeit with different understanding than mine but no less legitimate. I do have regard for RCC in a way beyond theology as my first teaching job was at St. James Catholic School in 1972 and have memories only of cherished delight as this Presbyterian took communion and attended mass with my class every Friday at St. James Catholic Church. I was so very kindly welcome. Regards and may we all refine our discernment in faith.
LikeLike
Even if I had a doctorate in any of those fields the Cardinals and the Pope would still know more than me. Even if I had multiple doctorates in those fields, the Cardinals and the Pope would still know more than me since they have 200 doctorates and possibly more in those fields!
LikeLike
AND STOP CALLING IT THE RCC!
LikeLike
Is “Christ, who cannot be divided” the son of God and many churches in Christendom have made him into the God, ridiculing his actions and making him a fake who did if he died and who on several occasions told not the truth, though the Bible says God always tells the truth and that Jesus did not sin so also told the truth every time he said something?
LikeLike
Of course He told the truth, but he told it to fallen humans who often struggle with it.
LikeLike
A Creator Who could design and produce us had to know we would diverge.And had to know further, that we would justify our divergences at the expense of all the others.
We are His design; if we are a failure, He is hardly Omnipotent nor could He be Omniscient. and if He is not such things, who needs him mow? But if He is those things, it seems to follow that we are executing His wishes in large, even if not always in small instances.
Productive human behavior is not a secret of the cognoscenti; it is openly preached by many and with much agreement. That matters and what seems important, is to garner as much agreement and reinforcement for that as possible. Human behavior has much more effect upon others than does human belief. So long as a belief produces the needed behavior, its validity seems best left between the believer and his God. As, if I recall, the Scriptures generally advise as well.
Following that, it seems best to reinforce following Christian behavior is searching for commonality among human churches, leaving more esoteric details to God to worry about. Following Christian precepts from the Gospels ought to be sufficient challeng for most..?
LikeLike
As long there are different characters and people want to follow their own ideas and not those given by the Most High there shall be division in Church.
As long as there exist different groups who think they alone have received the power of God to form the only one true catholic church, there shall be division.
As long as trinitarians keep calling non-trinitaians heretics and cults, no unity in the Body of Christ shall be able to bring them together under one roof.
Though many forget they can all be part of that One Body of Christ and being used by God to bring people closer to Him.
LikeLike
Pingback: A participation in the body of Christ | Stepping Toes