Tags
Not often you can say you’ve been to hell and back on a blog, but here we have been, and this, be reassured, isn’t going over old territory; it is an attempt to draw some general lessons from it. The comments sections have more than 1000 comments in them on this subject, and while there are some irritated ones, I’d draw anyone’s attention to the long to-and-fro between Jessica and Dave Smith. Starting quite far apart, they never treated each other with other than courtesy and politeness and real respect (not that ‘with all due respect’ nonsense, which really means ‘I don’t respect you at all’). The result of that, and of interventions by others, was that there was a real discussion, you could see both sides thinking about what the other had said and trying to understand, and then respond. The result was what it so often is when Christians proceed in this way – a revelation that the gap was not as wide as it had seemed, and a real growth in true understanding.
I contrast that with the approach taken by quiavideruntoculi in his post on ‘hell, muslims and gutless Christianity’ – the title packs a punch, and his piece does the same. He is, as always, forceful, logical and hard-hitting. He rightly says it is the Spirit’s job to convert people, not his, but the Spirit works through us. We are his witnesses. So, I look at Dave Smith’s approach, and I look at QV’s and I know which one would make me want to know more about Catholicism. The version of it which seems to be offered by QV is the one my Protestant Belfast relatives and friends always said was there – intolerant of others, willing to use force and the sword, and prevented from so doing only by the law – convinced everyone else was little better than a pagan, and backward looking. It doesn’t surprise me that Bosco praises QV, he espouses just the sort of Catholicism that Bosco believes in. Reading Dave, I listen and I learn, reading QV, I marvel at what an educated man who plays with words can convince himself of. It clearly frustrates him that his Pope and most of his Bishops and Cardinals do not agree with him, and while he says he does not peddle a hermeneutic of rupture, I’m not sure some of his bishops or his Pope are not doing just that. I am not surprised he get angry with them, but how do we deal, as Christians, with disagreements?
Jessica outlined the case in her own Church, where there is a Communion which has such a difference of views on what is and is not sin that even it is beginning to wonder whether it is a communion. I am sure I see a similar range in the Catholic Church, and I am afraid I think here we just see the Anglicans saying without code what the RCs need code for. I doubt Cardinals Kasper and Nichols dissent from the liberal view on the issue of homosexuality being ‘sin’, but they cannot say so openly. So we get Kasper criticising the Africans for being backward, and Nichols going on about pastoral concern; no one can say decisively they do not agree with the teaching of their Church, but they do not say they do either. I actually prefer the openness of the Anglicans to the confusion and Newspeak of the RCC. Were I a Catholic, I should regard Nichols and Kasper as hirelings; indeed one reason I could never be one is that these men are to be found everywhere in the RCC. In my own small fellowship, we know where we stand – in Christ – and how – as men and women have done for generations. If anyone cannot hold fellowship on the Nicene Creed sincerely professed, then they know this is not the place for them; there is no need for hard words because we are clear about what we believe.
Across the range of Christianity we see that the old denominational divisions are far less relevant than that between those who adhere to the traditional Christian norms and those who want those norms to become aligned with those of the most socially liberal parts of the Western intelligentsia. At some point this will become clear, and at least then the acerbity might moderate, as we shall no longer have people under the strain of having to pretend they are in the same church. Words mean something, and belief in the Word who is the Truth involves conflict with what this world wishes to hold. If you need to be loved by the world, you cannot expect to remain faithful to Him whom the world rejected.
David B. Monier-Williams said:
Geoffrey, whether you intend it or not, you come across as the Pharisee and the rest of us as Publicans eg. “In my own small fellowship, we know where we stand – in Christ – and how – as men and women have done for generations.” It’s tough for Catholics to follow the ebb and flow of Prelates. It must be very difficult for someone on the outside of the Church to understand such an unwieldy organization let alone the dogma.
As a Cradle Catholic, I perceive the machinations of Rome to be just that. Having been through my basic Tridentine Mass of my youth and now post VatII, it’ll all come out in the wash, most likely long after I’m gone. Q for me, is like the buzzing of some friendly summer bees, though the same can’t be said of St. Bisto…of unknown fate. For Jess, Dave and NEO et alii they all take their stands in erudite fashion, though small squabbles occur from time to time. I suppose the strongest one that swirled about me, though it has now down to a simmer, was the one between the Traditionalists and Modernists, not forgetting the recent one about Hell.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
David, this is precisely my case against churches such as yours. Your own claim to the contrary notwithstanding, Jesus did not found ‘an unwieldy organisation’ he founded a fellowship of Christians who, as Acts and history showed, organised themselves at local levels for centuries. There was a good reason for this, it allowed real fellowship to subsist. I have no idea what the point is of having a church where the Pope believes God only knows what, your bishops are all over the place, and the faithful have no idea of their own catechism because catechetical education is rubbish.
There is a great commission given by Christ, and it isn’t about it all coming out in the wash at some point, it is about saving souls here and now. Your fellow Nichols supports gay masses in Soho, how is that saving anyone’s soul?
LikeLiked by 1 person
David B. Monier-Williams said:
So how would your church save their souls? How would you minister to them or throw them out with the bathwater?
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
We minister to them with the Gospel as the Apostles did. We say to them, as Jesus did, that he is the way, the truth and the life, and if you believe in him you can have eternal life. Turning to him, through Grace, produces a change in you. It is because I see no sign of that in St Bisto (love that) that I don’t believe him. You can no more know Jesus and be addicted to telling lies and to hatred, than you can become a woman by chopping off your whatsits.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David B. Monier-Williams said:
So what do you think the Mass is all about? Obviously, more than a Mass is needed with them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
The Mass is not available to non-Catholics, and should not be to those Catholics who have not confessed and received absolution. It matters, but it is not an instrument of evangelisation for these reasons. No one ever came into the Church because of the Eucharist in the Mass, because it is not possible to receive unless you are a catholic.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Actually, Geoffrey, that is precisely what drew Dr. Scott Hahn to the Catholic Church. Having read his way into the faith, he was certain that this Church had long disappeared or transformed into something other than what he had read about; so he began going to noon Mass everyday (not receiving, obviously) but still praying and watching and pondering every word of the liturgy. It was ultimately that which made him hunger for the Eucharist and seek out Bishop Bruskewitz for his instruction into the Church. So it ‘can’ be a vehicle of evangelization . . . though the mental and logical work of reading and thinking needs to accompany it: either before or after witessing the Mass.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Interesting, but I wonder how common that is?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Among the notable converts, quite common . . . for the unknown; it remains unknown. In my own experience, there were two reasons that people were joining the Church: 1) because their spouse was Catholic and 2) because they felt lost and rather cold even though they had tried a variety of different churches and pastors. Some of these become rather zealous souls and others become pew sitters. But most that I taught have remained which is good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Always good to hear, and anything which brings anyone to the Lord gets my vote 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Indeed . . . we stand in need of courageous and zealous Christians in our day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
So much, and yet we have so many hirelings when we need a Daniel in the Lion’s Den!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Amen to that. A good dose of getting thrown to the lions might produce one . . . I’m just hoping that I might not be thrown into that old den. I always hoped I could die at home in my own bed surrounded by loved ones. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
if we’re fortunate – but perhaps it is the comfort to which we have been used which has softened our edges?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
It would not surprise me my friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David B. Monier-Williams said:
Well, I think you need to check with our practices and there are many many converts who have come because of the Eucharist. In fact if I was pushed, I’d say that was the most important reason.
In terms of curing the sick and ministering to the sinner, it’s good to be reminded of Luke 5: 17-32.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
True, but I can’t see it as a major vehicle of evangelisation I’m afraid.
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
For many non-Catholics, for whom the Mass is always available, are drawn to believe in what is the greatest miracle performed by the Holy Spirit every minute of every day worldwide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Going to it is, receiving not so, but if it brings many to the Lord, I am glad of it 🙂
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
…. so the ‘converts’ come because of the Eucharist? It doesn’t have something to do with hearing and obeying the call to repent?
One wonders how the ministry of John the Baptist was so successful (Matthew 3) when there wasn’t a Eucharist. Also – a point of concern following Rob’s recent comments – John the Baptist didn’t perform any signs or wonders. He simply presented Christ truthfully, called on people to repent and ‘confessing their sins, they were baptised by him.’
If it is the Eucharist that is drawing them in – if the Eucharist is the cause rather than the effect – then there is something very wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Yes, Jock, to those who do not see that the Eucharist IS Christ Himself among us and is Truth Itself among us it might appear to be something very wrong. Otherwise it is the All in all.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Dave – this begins to sound like dago talk, making one thing look like another.
Truth is the Word of God, which we hear. Truth is not a wafer, not even a transubstantiated wafer.
The Eucharist – or Lord’s Supper, irrespective of what one believes about transubstantiation – is an ordinance for believers. You are convicted of your sins and brought to repentance by hearing and believing the Word of God – you are not convicted of your sins and brought to repentance by seeing a nice cosy ceremony involving a wafer and a glass of wine (even a transubstantiated wafer and glass of wine).
If the starting point for conversion is ‘oh how pretty the ceremony of the Eucharist looks’ then you’ve lost the game.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Beauty is of God and Truth as well Jock. But as for the Eucharist many who came to believe in repentance walked away from Christ over His teaching. It would not surprise me that when Paul said that if they did not see Christ in the Eucharist that they should not eat of it . . . as they would be eating and drinking to their own destruction. Now this was not a teaching of what they could see with their mortal eyes but with the eyes of belief (those folks that show faith greather than doubting Thomas). It would not have surprised me if many of Paul’s followers quit going to the Breaking of the Bread liturgy in his day as well.
If you have come to believe in the Bread of Life come down from heaven it should not scandalize you that these folks are hungry for it and are drawn to the Liturgy where they may find conversion just being in the presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
Jock, I think Dave is addressing this very well and I only want to add a thought or two. (I am a convert as was my late wife.) My experience, and I believe that of many converts, is exactly because of a call to repent. Repentance almost always comes first, certain in my life and my wife’s. Many converts, I think, finally are brought to their knees and repent, and a transformation begins to take hold of their hearts. That’s the dangerous part, the transformation can lead us to “eave our mothers and our fathers” and cling to Him. I haven’t met a convert ho comes to Mass because it is beautiful. They come because they are starving for truth. Yes they find beauty there, but the beauty of the mass is the voice of Christ not only speaking to them in a way that has never happened before, but it is also Christ coming to them in a form of self-sacrificial love. You say that truth is not a wafer, that the Word of God is Truth. I can only say that the wafer would be nothing without the Word of God. I think most Catholics understand that. The mass is a love feast, not an ordinance. I have probably made a bubbling mess of trying to explain these things, but I wanted to try.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Dave Smith said:
I think your thoughts very good Grandpa. I am reminded however, where Fr. Groeschel spoke of how different people are attracted to Christ in different ways: some beauty, some truth, some forgiveness, some mercy, some love, some because they are attracted to the all good. None of us are exactly alike but all of us have avenues prepared for our dispositions which lead us to Him.
I might add that Jock speaks for many when he sees no need for the doctrine of transubstantiation . . . Geoffrey and others don’t seem to need an explanation. But then, St. Thomas Aquinas was presenting a logical discourse for the philosphers and those who delved into metaphysics and spoke to them in their own tongue . . . it is not the tongue of the man in the street. I would say that this doctrine has taken away in large part their argument that this does not make sense in their philosphical thought. It did make sense and has pretty much stopped the speculation that led them to conclude that it is but a mere symbol of Christ. So for us we need only see with faith and our souls see Him even when our bodies and minds do not. The more we grow in His love the more we see and actually feel His presence in this sacrificial act of love. It is more than a symbol to us . . . it is tangible in a spiritual reality understood by faith and love.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
Exactly, very well said. I understand where Jock is coming from, I was just offering a few thoughts that occurred to me for the cause of discussion.
On a side note, I credit Fr Groeschel with my own conversion when he talked about the Eucharist. My most vivid memory of him, though, was when he was talking about someone who was losing his faith and said could no longer pray because he didn’t believe. Fr Groeschel said in that affectionately gruff tone he employed from time to time, “Pray anyway!” I always remember that when I am feeling a bit low, pray anyway. What a gift.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
He was indeed a great gift to the Church. I had the honor and privilege of meeting a speaking with him on about 4 occasions. It also was a ‘supernatural’ grace in his presence that brought my old spiritual director to decide on a late vocation to the priesthood (may he rest in peace). He may never be beatified but in my heart of hearts Fr. Groeschel had an aura of holiness about him and I feel that I met a living saint.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Philip Augustine said:
Geoff,
Your description, perhaps, is accurate –in a way– with the formation of the Early Church but 2nd century Christians (Irenaeus of Lyons) claim Peter and Paul to have founded the Church of Rome. I would say it may be subtle but the heart of your statement is denying that Christ founded the Catholic Church through St. Peter. I would certainly, historically, reject this sentiment. True that other scholars may agree with you, but all have their motivations and bias.
Furthermore, It doesn’t take a large leap to understand how those believe that a natural evolution occurred from that point. Irenaeus also indicates Linus’ selection as Peter’s successor.
Why question Christ’s plan in a generation of two, yet, believe some part of scripture that passed through several generations in oral tradition? I would say the Holy Spirit can certainly guide through the entirety of time.
In my opinion, holding one position and not the other is contradictory,
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Let me try to explain a bit, because I can see why you say this from what I said 🙂
I do not doubt for a minute that Peter was in Rome, or that he became the elder of the Church there, bishop if one likes the term. There is equal, or even better evidence, that he was bishop at Antioch where we were first called Christians.
What I doubt is that Jesus meant the office of leader of the Apostles to adhere in Peter;s successors in Rome. That, from about the fourth century onward. those successors, and most notably the great Leo, put forward that claim I understand, but it was never accepted in the form Leo expounded it by Constantinople (canon 28 of Chalcedon if memory isn’t failing me, was a cause of great disputation).
My position is pretty close to the Orthodox. I think were there an English Orthodox Church, I’d be in it, but whilst there are vagante descended groups claiming to be that, I’m sticking to where the Lord put me.
That said, I think on the Papacy I am with the Orthodox rather than the Protestants 🙂
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Fair enough, for me, Although I don’t agree with my Orthodox friends on their position on Rome, it’s easier to accept it than other positions as it is a position that originates from the early Church.
Although my Orthodox friend still believes there was a form of Petrine authority in the Early Church that he agree was present. The Bishop of Rome had the authority to call council of the other Bishops.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I am happy with most of that, but would simply say that none of the first seven was called by the Pope (although I think Chalcedon was partly his initiative) and that, again, if memory serves, Constantinople I was not even known about in Rome until Chalcedon!
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
You have reminded me of the very good essay by the Venerable Fulton Sheen, my friend: https://servusfidelis.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/a-plea-for-intolerance.pdf
How wise and prescient his writings as we look upon our present stage of affairs and the common thinking among men these days. You do seem to echo him . . . whether consciously or not.
Also, thank you for the kind words Geoffrey. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I am in your debt for bring that to my attention. It all goes with what I say at the end, there is more fellowship between real Christians in different churches than between believers and modernists in the same church!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Yes, it was that, I think, that brought this to mind Geoffrey. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Honestly, if one of my fellow elders here held the views of some of your bishops, we’d have an empty church too! When will folk get it – what Jesus offers is what people need and if we take it to them, some of them will recognise that. if we water it down, why would anyone want that? It seems the Anglicans and some RCCs are incapable of seeing what I would call the bleeding obvious – no one wants watery soup!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Indeed, that would be the natural reaction my friend. Thankfully, the Divine Will and the sense of the Truth revealed by the Holy Spirit to those who love Him remains intact. It is the secret to the longevity of Christ’s Church. We seem to weather these storms because the Truth does not go away no matter how hard men try to reinterpret them or argue them away. So . . . for those men and women of good will the truth wills out over time. Though too much of the wrong food might cause cancer, we do not quit eating . . . and our bodies (or souls in this case) . . . seem to lead us to the foods that we really need.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
True so far, and it will always be so with those who believe. But quite what will happen when Rambling Pope Frank comes out with whatever nonsense he’s going to over communion for the divorced, we shall see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
We will indeed. In my opinion he will only receive an asterisk or perhaps a footnote in history. Though if a full blown schism erupts, he will have a full chapter devoted to him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
He’s that most dangerous of things, an old man in a hurry. He has swallowed too many of the fashionable concepts from the 70s and wants to put them into practice while he can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I am afraid he must as fashion has a tendency to change rather quickly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
You and I both know that in our generation there are ageing trendies who will never acknowledge that 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Aye, progressives who only aim is progressing endlessly for its own sake with no aim or goal but to progress. They are more to pitied than ridiculed I suppose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
But when they get into power (which they are good at) they are like termites in a house – that reduces my pity quotient!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
As Bishop Sheen said in the linked article, it is like a mouse that chews at the foundation of the very house that puts a roof over their head. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Bang on the money – what a good chap he was!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I do love the way in which he taught.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
You know, that’s one of the things I admire about the Anglicans. The willingness to put the whole mess in the show window and go at it.
Will it split the church/communion? I’d say it’s likely to. It already has in the US. The next question is that a bad thing? The Lutheran church split long ago over such things, and may well again.
That’s only a problem if you posit that both orthodox and heterodox are correct. If they aren’t, then the ones that are wrong leaving is not to be lamented, except that those that had the right of it weren’t able to convince them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
That’s about the size of it. At some point the unorthodox should be left to get on with it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Indeed so, it becomes a bit unseemly!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
The “unsaid” stances of Kasper with subjects like Homosexuality, etc. is simply because he has lost the Catholic Faith and has become a convert to modernism and materialism while still wearing red.
Sure, we can pull at that thread and say some of these unbending teachings since St. Paul are wrong and products of their time. Those who keep those teachings are “backwards.” (Even though I consider Cardinal Sarah a far better Catholic.) However, pulling that thread simple just unravels the complete sweater.
If we just start changing these teachings because the modern world demands it for the “survival” of the Church then to hell with the whole thing.
Furthermore, the evangelization of the Eucharist is simple, John Chapter 6. I have no problem having a prerequisite to the Eucharist until you understand transubstantiation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Me neither, and although I do not believe in the details, as far as I understand them, of transubstantiation (although it might be better to say I think it over complicated), I do believe that Jesus is present in the bread and the wine – the whys and hows I don’t need to know – the actuality is sufficient.
You are right about Kasper, and the same is true of the English Cardinal Nichols I think. These men are hirelings and should be given their leave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gareth Thomas said:
Good article and good discussion. I find the way people of different traditions engage with issues on this blog very impressive. If it wasn’t for the fact I am taking a three minute coffee break from mock A-level exam marking, I would love to get stuck in here. Keep up the good debate folks.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you Gareth, and it is good to have you on board again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I’ll second that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gareth Thomas said:
I’ll third that, having finished my mock exam marking. (Great stuff from my star candidate but he’s just been told he didn’t get a place at Cambridge. Cambridge’s loss, I’ll tell him.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
That’s a shame . . . I hope he can use that small defeat to rise above and continue to excel in his studies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Eccles: I’m wearing a Cambridge tie!
Greenslade: You? You were at Cambridge?
Eccles: Yeah!
Greenslade: What were you doing there?
Eccles: Buying a tie.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Cambridge? Yes, I have heard there is a university of sorts there – perhaps he’ll find a better place to go.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Grandpa Zeke and Dave Smith
Grandpa Zeke – in your first response, you more or less reflect my own position – firstly someone is convicted of their sins and turns to Christ. Only then does the Eucharist / Lord’s Supper become important; one first hears and responds to the Word and only then is the sacrament a sign and seal.
This is flatly the opposite of what David Monier-Williams was suggesting, where the Eucharist itself becomes the selling point.
I have seen a disgusting phenomenon in churches where they do have a Eucharist upon which they place a lot of emphasis. The church service starts at 11 and people roll up at 11.40 when it would look to those of us who are naive and uninitiated in utter sacrilege, as if it is all over – why come in now? Answer: that’s when they start distributing the bread and wine. I first saw this pathetic spectacle in Klarakyrkan, Stockholm (a Lutheran church) and have since noticed that it also takes place in Catholic churches. The priests administering the sacrament do not tell these people that they are utterly disgusting and that they should never darken the doors of the church again; in full knowledge of what is going on, they administer the sacrament anyway.
Dave Smith – Let’s for one minute do a thought experiment and move into the land of hypothetical conditional. Just for sake of argument, suppose that the Catholic understanding of John 6 (I’m taking Raymond Brown’s commentary here) is valid. It was precisely the discourse of Jesus stating that people only had life if they ate his body and drank his blood that caused them to desert him. They did not say ‘what is he on about? we cannot understand this at all.’ No; the meaning was that they understood exactly what Jesus was saying to them and decided that this was too high and too hard.
My question is: what was Jesus doing with the Eucharist that was so wrong back then that it drove everybody away which the Catholic church has since corrected – so that the Eucharist is now the selling point? So that these people in Klarakyrkan who do not have a single Christian hair in their head see no problem rolling up to take the sacrament (that was Church of Sweden – but I know it’s the same in the RCC).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
Good morning Jock, on my first cup of coffee which is always dangerous as I tend to still be fuzzy headed. But yes, I meant to reflect what you had said about the need for repentance before receiving the Eucharist. In my limited experience, that is what I have seen among the Catholic converts I have known, that true repentance has occurred and continues to occur. I should have also added in my original comment to you, since I was thinking it, that it is the Eucharist that KEEPS converts in the RCC, in my experience anyway, it is only after acknowledging in their hearts their love for the Lord and finding Him speaking to them (in their prayer life, or through the Scriptures, or through their visits to the Mass in which they do not yet receive the bread and the wine) that they come to an understanding and a love of the Eucharist. I would say it is very rare for a convert, once this love is in his or her heart, to abandon the RCC.
I have no experience of the Eucharist being used as a selling point in the way you describe, I certainly don’t deny that it is going on but only that I have never seen it, but I would imagine Dave might have some thoughts on that.
Thanks so much for the friendly chat!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Grandpa Zeke – all this sounds very good.
With apologies – I got the wrong church – it’s Katarina Kyrkan (in Södermalm) where I saw this. There weren’t many people there to begin with at 11am – and there weren’t very many towards the end either, but the number (approximately) doubled just at the point where the sermon had finished and the choir (very professional) were singing a song just before the distribution of bread and wine was about to begin.
On the one hand, I do think there is a difference between converts, who make a decision for Christ and those (usually cradle people) who belong to their denomination by default, simply because they were born and brought up with it.
At the same time, it seems to me that David Monier-Williams and Bosco are very similar (although one is Catholic and the other is goodness-knows-what) and what DMW seems to be suggesting is a scenario where the mass performs pretty much the same function as Bosco’s ‘ask Jesus to reveal himself to you’ – some sort of Spiritual ‘feelgood’ without the repentance which follows conviction of sin.
In your experience you haven’t seen this happen (which is good), but I don’t believe it doesn’t happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
Yes, I believe that it happens, Jock, you saw it with your own eyes and I don’t dispute it. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
If I may . . . it is true that when you separate the true believers from the ‘going-through-the-motions’ believers, we find that (whether cradle Catholics or converts) there are many who do receive the Eucharist whilst in grave mortal sin – quite illicitly. Many of them were poorly taught their faith and others have yet to have a conversion of heart which is necessary to be a vibrant and active believer. Sometimes conversion of the heart happens early . . . sometimes later in life or even on the deathbed. And sadly, in some cases, it doesn’t happen at all. We are all to blame if we continue to be ashamed to speak of the moral virtues and refuse to point out what behavior is sinful and what it is that should prevent the person from having access to the Eucharist. In other words . . . they need to be reminded about the need of repentance.
Beyond that, you can’t make a person believe or drink at the spring of living waters . . . you can only lead them to it and explain it to them. It is their own conscience that guides them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Grandpa Zeke
(I just tried posting something, but it seemed to get lost).
Firstly – with apologies – it was Katarina kyrkan where I saw the spectacle I described. There weren’t many people there to begin with and there weren’t too many towards the end either, but the number approximately doubled at the point where the sermon (a content-free 10 minute job) had finished and the choir (a very professional choir) were singing a song just before the bread-and-wine performance was about to begin.
On the one hand, I think that converts – those who were convicted of their sins and started going to church as a result – are probably more consistently serious than cradle people. There are many serious cradle people, but equally there are many who are simply there because they were born and brought up there, they have a social life there and they stay largely because of inertia.
On the other hand, it seems to me that David Monier-Williams and Bosco are very similar in their approach, even though one is Catholic and the other is goodness-knows-what, and I worry that the Catholic mass could become the Catholic version of Bosco’s ‘ask Jesus to reveal yourself to him’ – some sort of wacky spiritual experience that has absolutely nothing to do with conviction of sin and repentance.
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
I worry that the Catholic mass could become the Catholic version of Bosco’s ‘ask Jesus to reveal yourself to him’
You could be right about that Jock, I certainly hope not though. I wanted to demonstrate to you in my previous comments that there is a current of true devotion and deep faith among Catholics, some are actually cradle Catholics and not just the converts. But I do get your points. I will ponder them more before commenting further as at the moment I have no answer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Thanks for this. I tried replying to it (twice), but on both occasions it seemed to vanish into thin air when I pressed the ‘post comment’ button. I’ll wait until the apparent glitch no longer seems to be there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Ah – it seems to be working now. OK the points were as follows:
1) I made an error; it wasn’t Klara kyrkan; it was Katarina kyrkan, on Södermalm. The congregation wasn’t very large to begin with, but it approximately doubled after the sermon (which was dismally short and content free), during the bit where the (very professional and competent) choir was singing something before they went into their bread-and-wine procedure.
2) Yes – while there are serious ‘cradle’ people (I think I more or less have the faith I was brought up with – I can’t really put my finger on a conversion experience), it does seem to me that converts are more likely to be serious. I’m therefore not surprised that you find that the converts whom you meet are more serious.
3) I’m still not convinced, though. I see great similarities between the David Monier-Williams approach and the Bosco approach. One is Catholic, the other is goodness-knows-what, but clearly not very well disposed to the RCC. It strikes me that they’re both trying to do the same thing – one through the mass and the other through ‘ask Jesus to reveal himself to you’ – both bypassing the crucial need for conviction of sin and repentance.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Still something going wrong. Perhaps the reply contained a magic word, by which it got caught in a spam filter. Anyway, I give up after the third attempt.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I am afraid it was the use of the word ‘Bosco’ 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
As the word ‘Bosco’ triggered the spam filter, I have fixed it so it doesn’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Perhaps the spam filter has a very good point and perhaps we could start using ‘B-sco’ as a rude word. For example, ‘what the B-sco are you on about?’ or ‘that argument looks like a pile of B-sco’. It could be a useful and versatile vocabulary item within a heated discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
The atmosphere seems to have changed for the better – can’t imagine why 😄
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Jock, first of all, not to my knowledge (and I have been to a good number of Masses around this country) does anyone come in that late and still receive and I am not aware of any non-believing folks attending who wand or do receive the Eucharist in violation of Church teaching. Every missalette in the pews tells the visitors that they are unable to receive the Sacrament unless they are Catholic or their church is in communion with the Catholic Church.
The rule of thumb for Catholics is that if you arrive too late for the Gospel readings, you should not receive the Eucharist. In fact, you have not truly fulfilled your Sunday obligation. If it was a an act of will that you were late, you might want to go to Confession and clear your conscience unless, of course a personal emergency (kids, a sickness at home, traffic, or car breakdown etc.) prevented you from arriving on time. Your conscience will need to guide you on this.
My understanding of John 6 is that good Jews understood that drinking blood was abhorrent to God and forbidden in Leviticus. They could not know, of course, that Christ was speaking of eating and drinking His flesh and blood of His risen Body under the appearance of bread and wine. But they did find out. Paul, on the other hand, must have taught his followers all of this and so he said what he said to those who were treating the liturgy of the Breaking of the Bread as a simple meal or get-to-gether. He set them straight.
Of course, one has to have some modicum of understanding to even want to attend the Liturgy of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. And, of course, one would expect that somehow, by reading, studying or by personal experience and the coniction of themselves in their sin, that folks seek first, conversion to truth in Baptism, to forgiveness of sins in Confession and Absolution and the reception of Christ in the Eucharist. During this process, even before they have been admitted to the Church many, myself included, go to Mass and pray.
My wife was Catholic, and I was not. I attended the Mass for her and my children . . . I don’t think this very unusual at all. Over time the Mass and my interest in the teachings of the Church had effect on me and drove me to study Catholicism as I had never studied a religion before or since. This left me with the desire to join, confess and receive our Lord in Communion.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
There was me thinking that your Church did not change things. I like the casuistry. Do you imagine that in the reign of Mary the Church was going around saying’ well if you really must burn people’? Pole was the man behind the burnings, but he had the sense to be able to put the blame on the State – the fact he was Mary’s Chancellor means he was to blame, but only in that capacity. Any Church which needs to resort of obvious casuistry ought to ask questions about what Truth means!
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
“I only defend the use of force by state, under carefully defined conditions.”- Every Dictator that has existed.
Q, would have so burned me… by turning me over to the secular authorities, of course.
However, what I believe is actually supported by a Church document of the 20th century: Dignitatis humanae.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
“Pope Leo X formally condemned the view that burning heretics is per se against the Holy Spirit in the bull Exsurge Domine, 1520 (proposition 33).”
Of Course, you understand that the Pope is a political leader. An office that has had more political power in the past. Too bad for all of those burned after the period you’ve supplied… oh and too bad for Bruno, where the Pope was the secular authority. I think its wise rather than justifying these incidents, the church should rather pray for forgiveness.
Also, a dictator has only the authority of force, which I am to conclude from your statements that you’re okay with said force. This is why a monarch, who through Divine Rights of Kings gets authority through God and the will of God is represented by the Church, is not a dictator.
Furthermore,You didn’t deny that had we lived in different times you wouldn’t burn me… and I’m Catholic. Doesn’t look good for the others here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
QV is too clever a fellow for his own good. The sophistry is obvious to those far less clever. Fortunately the English decided they’d rather cut off Charles Stuart’s head and chuck his useless son out than submit to such nonsense. That has not stopped too clever by half Englishmen arguing nonsense, but it has saved us from its consequences 🙂 Long live Oliver Cromwell – showed the Spaniards and the French what we thought of them.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Well, I’m not in support Oliver Cromwell or his many crimes. On the flip side his actions against Catholics (penal laws and outright theft of land) in Scotland and Ireland have been labeled by many scholars as genocidal in nature. I would suggest Puritans* to pray for forgiveness for such actions.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Thanks Q, I was worried for a moment, I, of course, am jesting a bit on the matter. Chesterton said once something of the nature that it’s a good measure of religion if one can joke about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Ah, so you erased my Jesus stands at the door. Well, that answerd any and all of my questions. Thank you.
LikeLike