Yesterday I offered some comments on the shoddy journalism provided for us by the BBC on Monday night with its ‘Panorama’ programme, today I want to offer some comments as to the purpose behind it. Those involved are all well-educated, highly intelligent men, and the agenda they were pushing clearly, at least in their own minds, justified what they were doing.
If you start from the premiss that clerical celibacy is somehow ‘wrong’, then intellectually, it is easy to take the short-cut to seeing what someone without such a bias could not see – why the fact that St Pope John Paul II had a long epistolary relationship with a distinguished woman philosopher should be an argument against it. Whether or not the philosopher concerned might have fallen in love with the Pope, it is clear that the relationship between them remained within proper boundaries, and if John Cornwell or Ed Stourton has discovered a way of stopping women falling in love with handsome, charismatic men, they should tell the world about it. There is only one reason it could be considered an argument against clerical celibacy – fidelity to the vow would stop the priest abusing his position. Is that really what they want? If so, why not be honest about it, why the guff about ‘loneliness’? Do they really think that relationships between men and women have to have a sexual element? Perhaps single-sex boarding schools for boys are a bad idea? As the continuous emphasis on the fact that she was ‘beautiful’ shows, there is an element of schoolboy smuttiness in their reaction which shames only themselves – the old ‘Carry on matron’ spirit will not die whilst such men live.
Clerical celibacy is indeed ‘just’ a discipline in the Latin Church, and it could, indeed, be set aside. The Church has not seen fit so to do. It is legitimate to argue the case against it, but to base it when Stourton is basing it is not an argument, it is an excuse to scratch an itch which actually discredits those using it.
There is, of course, a wider agenda here. The authoritarians on the liberal wing of the Church, who have suddenly in Pope Francis, discovered the joys of obedience, spent the best part of three decades alternately sulking and whining about the authoritarianism of John Paul II and Benedict XVI – and when I say whining, just remember that the Tablet’s Rome correspondent actually cried when Joseph Ratzinger became Pope. They objected to the successor of Peter daring to disagree with their desire to turn the Catholic Church into the American Episcopal Church – and they continue to be frustrated that their ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ Pope is not moving fast enough in the desired direction – old men in a hurry all of them.
No doubt, in their own minds, if by a drip drip of innuendo they could leave the impression that that great hero of Orthodox Catholicism (odd how they always forget Assisi) John Paul II had feet of clay, it would help their cause. I suspect that all it really helps, is their own biliousness with the great Pope – their reactions to him are reminiscent of that of the British Left to Mrs Thatcher. Unable to win the debate during the life time of the two great figures, the frustrated old men need to express a lifetime’s bitterness before they pass on to their reward. Quite why the BBC might pander to such men does not need a public enquiry, but it does raise further questions about why those who own a TV should be required to support it through the licence fee. Those with a taste for that sort of thing have the Tablet and the Guardian to relieve their loneliness.
Dave Smith said:
There is a fascinating character flaw that is exposed here (in fact we see it all the time) and seems almost part of the DNA of a liberal progressive or secular progressive, modernist or whatever one wishes to call them at the moment. That is the apparent inability to contain their glee if they can but destroy the reputation of someone that the conservatives might hold up as an heroic figure. When Antonin Scalia was found dead last week, as with the death of Tony Snow, it wasn’t but a few hours before the left broke out into celebrations and uttering the most vile things about these people. Is it envy or just plain meaness that motivates these folk? It seems almost demonic, like the attacks on the Person of Jesus . . . that He was not celibate and did not know that He was Divine. Nothing is sacred or holy and how dare there be persons of integrity and higher principle than they; who of course are the real holy people who espouse love in all the wrong the places and venerate some of the most vile persons on the planet . . . thus the love for Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Mao etc. At times you would think the devil himself was orchestrating a movement to rid the world of healthy role models and examples of what it means to live a principled life.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
It certainly reveals more about these people than they ought to feel comfortable revealing. As we see in social media, many on the Left seem unable to depersonalise disagreement. I suppose they are so convinced they are right that they have to attribute moral depravity to their opponents – and one wonders how they have such immediate access to it!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave Smith said:
Indeed. The Mystery of Iniquity!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
I’m inclined to ascribe a good bit of it to envy. It seems to me to be very much like a naughty child, if they can’t have it, then no one can have it. The cant phrase, “If it wasn’t for double standards; the left would have no standards at all,” often seems to go to the heart of it. The same old, same old: in income, in character, in seemingly everything worthwhile.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
It seems reasonable to me as well, NEO. I suppose that we should not be surprised that if God has His Saints who are venerated by His followers, Satan has his saints that are extolled by the world of this prince of darkness. Where we value virtue, they value vice: whether to extoll it or use it as a weapon to smear on those who did not submit to their slavery to sin.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
We see it so often, it seems lately. The unholy and gleeful uproar after Justice Scalia’s death was … well the only word that fits for me, is evil, and what Panorama did is not much less. I’ve never seen so many working so hard to pervert good into evil.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave Smith said:
Well I can only meditate upon the observation that Fulton Sheen often did: evil has its hour but God has His day.
Seems we live in one of those hours . . . but the day will win out in the end. I just hope and pray that many might escape participating in these evil hours . . . though that seems less and less likely in our time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
Quite. And yes, medium/long term I’m quite optimistic – it’s the short term that worries me. It all comes down to things that can’t last, don’t. But destruction, even creative destruction has consequences, and those can be hard to bear. Fulton Sheen was right though.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Indeed. Too many work for the hour and not enough work for the day. And those who work for the hour detest those who work for the day. I suppose we must let satan have his hour so that Christ may have His Day . . . as it was in His short life here on earth so it is in our own time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Looks like that, doesn’t it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Very much so!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
“God has His Saints who are venerated by His followers,”
Can you help me out good brother, and give me a verse or two where gods followers, Christians, venerate saints(humans). Thanks much in advance.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Again, you fail because you insist that if it is not in the Bible it is not true – you never did tell me how all the Apostles whose death is not recorded are getting on now they are nearly 2000 years old?
The point is that this is something which grew up when the Apostles had died out, which is why the early Christians had pictures of Paul and Peter in the secret catacombs.
It must take an effort on your part of remain so ignorant – almost seems a shame to fill that empty hole with facts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – I am an ignoramus of extremely low IQ. I’ve had it explained to me a million times, but I still don’t get it.
What does the term ‘venerate’ actually mean? what does ‘worship’ mean? and how do the two concepts differ? Every time a Catholic has tried to explain ‘venerate’ to me, he/she has come up with something remarkably similar to ‘worship’, although (of course) the two things are supposed to be completely different and only someone of a very low IQ would fail to see this profound difference.
The term ‘Trinity’ is not in the bible, but it is a convenient technical term to describe something which clearly and plainly is. Can you point to me one single example where the concept of ‘venerate’ is in Scripture?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I have no idea why some Protestants have to make this complicated, it is as though if they understood it something terrible would happen to them.
Worship is what we give to God, and to God alone. It is the reaction of the created and saved to the Creator and Saviour. Venerate is what one human does to another who has died and whose life is thought to be worthy of commemoration. Think Poppy Day in England with religion added.
The concept is a Christian one, and it came in after the death of the Apostles, so why would you expect to find it in Scripture?
LikeLike
Rob said:
We might expect to find veneration in scripture as there were holy men in the OT that the Jews might have venerated following their death – but as far as I know we have no such examples.
LikeLike
Gareth Thomas said:
I am sure Chalcedon could answer your query much better than me: I am a mere Catholic believer and a man of little brain who is servant to four donkeys, as you know. One day I may be called to silence to put that simple faith into everyday practice, but since you ask, here is an answer.
We venerate saints as they reflect the glory of God. (Jn 17:22 – “The glory which you have given me, I have given to them.”) St. Paul says God honours the righteous. (Romans 2:4-11 – “For he will give every man according to his works. Those patiently do good works, seek glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life… glory and honor to everyone who does good.”) And Romans 13:1-7 instructs us to “respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.”
To venerate, in the Catholic sense, is to regard with great respect. The mistake that some literalists will always make is to say that the veneration of saints is “idol worship”, which is a primitive misunderstanding that is the “saved” version of political correctness.
I hope this helps.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Jock McSporran said:
Well, it gives some idea, but it doesn’t answer my central objection: the Psalms seem, at least to me, to give a blue-print for Christian worship – and I don’t see ‘veneration’ in them.
I agree that it isn’t idol-worship; I just don’t see how it goes together with the concept of worship that I find in the Psalms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gareth Thomas said:
Oh yes, sorry I forgot the necessary quote from the Psalmist, Jock: he states prophetically: “Many are the tribulations of the righteous, and the Lord shall deliver them out of them all” (Ps. 33:20). Or maybe we shouldn’t celebrate that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Yes – this verse illustrates perfectly what I’m on about – it is the Lord who does the delivering.
LikeLike
Gareth Thomas said:
He does the delivering through the righteous. Exactly. Now get back to Chalcedon’s point, cease nitpicking, and stop undermining the whole essence of the thread, which is the Church is under attack by the media and the Catholic liberals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I sometimes think all some Christians care about is destroying the Catholic Church – and not all of them are members of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
Gareth, if that is all it means I think many non-Catholics would have no trouble with the concept. I have had several people that I thought of as great Christians and now they have passed on think of them often with great affection and honour in remembrance of their inspiring example.
Does that count as veneration if it does then this member of the saved is guilty of it?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
“Again, you fail because you insist that if it is not in the Bible it is not true ”
Ok, said Simple Simon to the pieman….now im getting some where.
We agree venerating humans isn’t in the bible. The bible doesn’t say NOT to send me all your money.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The Bible doesn’t mention the Bible or tell us what it is composed of – so your point would be?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
The Saints flatly refused to be “venerated”
And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.
13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed, and if you can show me where anyone venerates someone who is still alive, you might have a point.
You miss the point here, the pagans are treating them like gods, and that is nothing to do with veneration. Maybe when you are dead and gone you wouldn’t want your daughter to remember you fondly, but most people wouldn’t share that view.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Maybe he doesn’t understand the word, venerate? I guess he doesn’t think that the apostles were treated by other Christian followers with great respect and reverence – showing them honor or holding them in acclaim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Null points – you got it wrong. Chalcedon has already explained that you don’t venerate somebody who is still alive. The Christian followers showed the apostles great respect even during their own lifetime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Indeed so: e.g. Acts 5:13 “None of the rest dared to join them, but the people held them in high esteem.”
That is my understanding of veneration of Christian people who are thought to be holy and principled in their belief. The left has their own people that they venerate; only in their case they are unprincipled and often actually evil such as Che Guevara and other murderous fiends. That is what I was saying and I thought it was quite clear.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Dave – I’m just through with the Psalms (following my morning daily bible readings) and they’re still (reasonably) fresh in my head.
The striking feature is : to whom David (and the other psalmists) gave glory. It is God and God alone. Sure, Moses gets a mention. I’d hardly call it ‘venerate’ in the sense that you mean by the word. All veneration / worship / thanks / reverence / awe is directed towards God alone, very forcefully, throughout the whole of the psalms, which is a glorious guide to Christian worship.
I never understood what Catholics meant by ‘venerate’ and, following my reading of the Psalms, I understand it even less now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I hope you will now follow, and see why you wouldn’t see it in the Psalms. Unless, that is, you think there are hidden Christians there?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
David was a Christian. Some of the Psalms make this very explicit.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
David did not believe that Jesus was the resurrected Lord and so could not, at that point, have been a Christian. I have no doubt that when Our Lord descended into hell David was one of those raised again – but we should not anticipate our salvation.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Based on some of the Psalms, I believe that he did. He even writes descriptions of the sufferings of Christ in the first person.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Since the definition offered by the early Church is someone who accepted the Risen Christ as Lord, I cannot see how he could have been.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Sounds like your in need of dictionary Jock. Worship and vereration are different. Saints that have been raised to that stature by the Church is what C was speaking of to Bosco and he is right in their instance. No public veneration is given to these people while alive . . . only after they have been declared saints etc. But you cannot say that you would not show the greatest respect and esteem toward anyone living. I would hope that we value people of true Christian Character and hold them in high esteem whether they ever make it to the canonized status of Saint or not.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Dave – it is very curious that they never thought of this in the Old Testament. Why weren’t the patriarchs venerated?
Do you venerate Elijah?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
1 Sam. 16:23 “Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the oracle of God; so all the counsel of Ahithophel was esteemed, both by David and by Absalom.”
And Elisha did not hold Elijah in esteem?
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Nothing to do with venerate – they held the counsel of Ahithophel in esteem while he was still alive. Then they rejected his counsel and he went out and hanged himself. There is no hint that he was venerated after he hanged himself.
Elisha held Elijah in esteem when Elijah was on earth. There is no mention that Elisha continued to ‘venerate’ Elijah after he was taken away-
Claiming OT justification for ‘veneration’ from these two looks like eisigesis.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Is bowing out of consideration of a person wrong then? Or holding them in esteem. If so the Bible is full of these things, from Abraham and Moses and following . . .
You misconstrue respect, reverence, honor etc. with worship. They are not the same.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Dave – you don’t bow out of consideration of a person to a dead person, except perhaps at their funeral. It’s not the same thing.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
I’m not speaking of a dead person, Jock. I’m speaking of venerating someone who is alive . . . in other words, showing profound respect or admiration. One does not even have to bow to show it . . . but I would use that gesture as proof that it is all over scripture and by the holiest of men and women. If they showed this type of veneration for the holy and principled lives of persons, why shouldn’t we?
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Dave – you know that the word ‘venerate’ has a specific meaning, which is not simply showing profound respect or admiration. There is more to it than that. For example, to be ‘venerated’ in the RCC, you first have to perform three posthumous miracles. So you’re being somewhat disingenuous here.
Anyway, what precisely is the aspect of a person’s life that we admire? The Old Testament patriarchs were a bunch of rotters, every single one of them. Also, David was an adulterer and a murderer – and then he was too much of a coward to give Amnon what he deserved after the rape of Tamar (Amnon should have been executed forthwith. As far as I’m concerned, not executing Amnon was the worst outrage that David committed).
We admire the fact that despite their failings they were ultimately faithful to God and, furthermore, we don’t look to them; we look to God. The reason why the Psalms of David are so good is that they point us firmly to God; we don’t feel like venerating the patriarchs or Moses or any other OT hero of the faith after reading the Psalms; we are directed towards worshipping God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
You continue to think that veneration is worship and that one cannot venerate without worshipping. That is spectacularly wrong. Moses didn’t bow to his father-in-law as a means of worship nor did Abraham worship the Hittites when he bowed before them. One must have the intention to worship when one utilizes a human act of respect between humans. Best think a bit more on what Chacedon wrote and what Gareth wrote to understand the difference. Gestures of profound respect is not worship if one is simply venerating but when we worship God we most likely will show gestures of our human veneration as well. It is not reserved only to God but worship certainly is.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
…. so ‘veneration’ plays no role in any RCC act of worship, or prayer? you never come across the concept during mass? When do you venerate and how do you do it?
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
All bows, genuflections, or the once-a-year prostration of the priest is specifically directed to God. When we bow toward the altar or the crucifix or the priest when vested for Mass (as the alter-christos) it is showing veneration and profound respect for that which brings Christ and His Sacrifice to our mind and heart and truly to us in Communion. It is not directed toward the object or the person but it is directed to our Lord.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
None alive in Christ are dead (Rom. 4:17, Matt. 22:32). Only that which is alive can be venerated.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Newenglandsun – the RCC concept of ‘veneration’ does not appear anywhere in Scripture. Dave Smith mentioned Elisha’s relation to Elijah. Elijah didn’t even die; he was taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot. There is no mention at all that, after he was taken away to heaven, he was venerated in the RCC sense of the term by those still on earth.
With the RCC, there is some committee who decides if someone was holy enough, whether or not they performed a sufficient number of posthumous miracles and hence whether they are currently alive and in heaven.
In the case of Elijah, he didn’t even die – and there is not the slightest evidence that he was venerated (in the RCC sense) after he was taken up to heaven.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Bowing to a human is a greeting. They all did that. Bowing befor wood and stone is idolatry. One cannot equate the two, because humans are not made by human hands.
Esteem is different then venerate.
The Bronze serpent was venerated and god had Hezikiah get rid of it just for that reason. He doesn’t like objects being held up. And he hates people bowing befor objects.
Oh, and one is not appointed a saint by some committee. The saved are saints the moment they are born again.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It must be hard being infallible on everything? As it happens, if you are saved and in Heaven, you remain a saint.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Good brother, do you agree that bowing befor a live human is not forbidden in scripture?
Do you agree that bowing befor the works of our hands is expressly forbidden, and not just once, but millions of times.?
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Ummm …. well, that’s how it seems to me, but I suppose if I did some erm scholarly exegesis and was an incredibly brainy professor in a theology department, I might come to a different conclusion.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed, especially if you were ignorant enough to think we should smash up all objects because you didn’t understand that no Christian worshipped one. You could join those wretched forbears of Islamic State who destroyed about 90% of the art works in churches in England in the 1530. That’s where this sort of ignorance leads. This is why we need brainy professors 😄
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Oh, yes. Good brother Chalcedon, when you say saints are in heaven, do you mean Paradise, which is kind of a holding tank for the elect? Because we don’t get to heaven till after the marriage supper. Only two humans are in heaven, I believe, and they are Moses and Elijah. And they are described as trees. In short, the saints are in a holding pattern….they are not in heaven. Paradise is a place of rest, not a sweatshop for fielding prayers.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
On such things who can say – no one has come down from Heaven except the Word Incarnate.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Now that you ask, the book of Rev says we aren’t let into heaven till after the Lambs supper, when the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven. Even Jesus told the thief on the cross that today he will be in……where?…heaven?….no….today you will be with me in paradise. I used to think that we went straight to heaven, till I was shown the facts. But they are small facts. Heck, ill take either…paradise of heaven….I don’t care which one….just get me outta here.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That’s one version, I’ve heard others.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
What ever version you heard, if you believe what John saw when he was pulled into heaven, then that should be the end of it, kinda. There is still mystery as to what is going on in heaven, but John saw no legions of human saints manning prayerlines. He told of everything he saw.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If you will insist on reading an Apocalypse as a travelogue, you will also make errors – but hey, you know that but persist.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
I guess he doesn’t think that the apostles were treated by other Christian followers with great respect and reverence – showing them honor or holding them in acclaim.
Im sure the apostles were treated with some respect, even though they could disagree on things.
Do you think Peter would want a statue of him in a place of worship? Do you think Paul would want a statue of him erected in a house of worship where people could bow and kneel befor it and put gold and jewels on it? If I died, I wouldn’t want my daughter to make a statue of me and bow befor it, even though I like the sound of it. (;-D
LikeLike
Gareth Thomas said:
What strikes me most significantly about the comments under this post is the following. Chalcedon has rightly developed his earlier remarks on the BBC programme into a useful analysis of the secular agenda, promoted by the dangerous vipers of the liberal Catholic BBC/Tablet axis (Stourton being the most prolific). And what do we end up with on this thread? A continuing undermining of the Church, siding with the very forces that Chalcedon is warning us against. Thanks, Jock and Bosco… !!! If ever there was a time for Christians to stand together, it is now.
Never mind Christians are being crucified in the Middle East. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Where in the psalms does it say John Paul II iis a saint? Why do “costume holy men” eat custard and wear clown costumes?
Yes… er thanks, chaps. Where were we now, on the specific points about the BBC and JP II ? Get a grip, please.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
I asked if a person is to be venerated. The Bosco Broadcasting Corp is knocking down the walls of a supposed saint. The holiness of good brother Johnpaul is in question. I think good brother Srevus said that if Johnpaul wasn’t held up as a model Catholic, he wouldn’t be attacked. I agree. If these Holy Fathers weren’t held up as Christ himself, there would be no need for the press to make money selling their dirty laundry.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You really ought to read the posts, then you might make marginally less silly comments.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
I thought I read all them. maybe I didn’t see the underlying points. Ill try harder.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Do. The underlying point is that the MSM wants to undermine the Church, and can always find liberal patsys to help.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Well, as long as the media uses truth, then, they have my blessing. If they want to prove JP II had an affair…get the lady to admit to it.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
She’s dead.
LikeLike
Gareth Thomas said:
Bosco, I do not often reply directly to your infantile nonsense as it tends to just feed your naughty boy desire to get brickbats as a lonely source of recognition. (As a teacher I know children who only do naughty things to get negative attention when they can’t get positive attention. An adult doing this is a sad spectacle.)
But I will say this: your remarks serve no Christian purpose on this thread. Whatever is burning you up about Catholicism, which you spend your online life railing against, is surely your own shadow? You already said that you rarely go to that tin shack carvery chapel: you told us that. You have no religious home. You desperately stand outside and stare in through our window, seeing that we DO have a home. Christ’s home. Yet you never make a step towards the door.
It’s a great shame. That’s all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Good brother Ben Carter used to portray me as a fuming hatefilled anti-Catholic. My friends know me as the calmest person they ever met.
I have no violent hate for any religion, simply because religions are air. Its the sinister means that the holymen of these religions use to snare people. That is what I try to expose. For a few yrs I “ministerd” to Mormons,and for a number of yrs I “ministerd “toJehovas. Both of those ministries could have resulted in bodily harm.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Well, apologies that it got side-tracked – Chalcedon’s answer to Bosco didn’t add up (at least to me). But yes – the discussion of ‘veneration’ is irrelevant to the thread.
It’s interesting to see the different perspectives on JPII depending on where you are. In Britain, for example, he’s considered to be a conservative pontiff, taking a conservative line on doctrine. That is the aspect of overwhelming importance. I’m not sure that’s the perspective here – his role (more generally the role of the church) in the downfall of Communism is the characteristic that has the greatest significance.
I didn’t watch the programme – did this aspect get much of a mention? Or was it simply all about the fact that he seemed to like some woman an awful lot but couldn’t do anything about it?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It comes as a surprise to the BBC that men and women can have a relationship without sex; it seemed to come as a surprise to them that an attractive woman wrote philosopy; they don’t get out much, I suspeact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
….. and I suspect that if they finally got the point that JPII had a relationship without sex, they’d probably recommend that he see a sex therapist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
That is, alas, almost certainly the case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gareth Thomas said:
I will no longer hear that annoying idiot Stourton on the BBC R4 Sunday programme, as our Mass times in Finestrat have changed and we now have a new and excellent priest who has more Catholicism in his bones than a billion Ed Stourtons. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I have taken to listening to Radio Norfolk’s religious programme – less annoying.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bosco the Great said:
Good brother Jock, I believe veneration is at the heart of this. If good brother Johnpaul wasn’t venerated, these catholics wouldn’t be in such a tizzy about the BBC expose. The catholics have so few clergy that they can point to and say …there is an upright holy man of god. So when those few are targeted, its time to circle the wagons, otherwise it all unravels at the seams.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
There is no expose. Christians have venerated holy men from the immediate post-Apostolic age. Surely you chaps know this, so what’s your problem – its not in the Bible, well nor is the Bible, so what’s your point?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gareth Thomas said:
Actually, I am reminded now of Jess’s post about Esther and my experience of the wonderful Jewish festival of Purim. The shouting at the name of Haman and the banging on the meal table… and all for the veneration of Esther. The Jews do not call them saints, but they venerate them. It is our tradition too, There, Jock, is your “Old Testament” (Jewish Bible) project, so work it out for yourself. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
The Jews are in grave error. They hate Jesus and the NT.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Well, that makes more sense than what Chalcedon wrote earlier, when he stated that David was not a Christian.
For me it is pretty fundamental that it has to be the same faith before and after the crucifixion; the Jews trusted in God, looking forward to a redeemer, although they only glimpsed the reality (having said that, some of David’s psalms are rather explicit), we looking back on the once for all event, ‘crucified under Pontius Pilate’.
But there is a lot more to the Catholic concept of veneration than taking the view that someone was a thoroughly good chap (or chap-ess in the case of Esther).
I see no Old Testament equivalent of this. When Dave Smith tries to tell me that (for example) that RCC veneration is in some sense equivalent to what they did with Ahithophel, he proves to me that there isn’t really a parallel and that this is something entirely new, which was introduced after the crucifixion and after the New Testament was written.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t quite know how to break this to you, Jock, but most Jews did not and do not agree with you. You might want to appropriate their religion, but I rather thought we had stopped that sort of thing.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – you continue to make the same mistake, which is to look at the numbers game.
As I understand it, virtually all the Jews had turned to Baal worship during the time of Elijah and there were only 7000 left.
Furthermore, as I understand it, ‘most Catholics’ disagree with you. Most Catholics are probably either apathetic, or favourably inclined towards Vatican II.
David, in the Psalms describes the true faith. The fact that many Jews disagreed with the expression of faith there is a tragedy, but irrelevant to the current discussion.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That you choose to take from the Psalms what you have put there from a Christian reading leads you to one conclusion. The Jews, from whose traditions the Psalms spring, seem unable to find the same reading – which is what makes me think you have placed it there. I have never yet met a Rabbi who thought that you could find the Trinity in the Psalms.
On Vatican II, I’m not understanding your point. QVO often berates me for not being opposed to it, and he is right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
I’m only doing with the Psalms and Old Testament prophets what Paul did when he explained from Scriptures that the Messiah must needs have suffered. In fact, in this context it’s probably better to use Isaiah, since that seems to be the part of Scripture that the Christians used most of all to explain their faith before the NT was written.
Anyway, Hebrews 11 indicates to me that the faith of the ancients was exactly the same as our faith and this is the faith you find in the Psalms.
I hadn’t been following the arguments; who was for and who was against Vatican II. I could have chosen a different example – if you go to the football terraces of Glasgow, you’ll get a good idea of the ‘faith’ of ‘most’ ‘Catholics’ (and ‘Protestants’ until the demise of Glasgow Rangers). I wouldn’t use numbers of adherents as a measure of truth or quality.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It rather seems as though you are going beyond what Paul did, although, to use your own favourite hermeneutic, if you can provide references to Paul saying King David was saved and was a Christian, then you will prove your point; if you are simply saying it is your personal extrapolation, you will prove mine.
I am not sure that football terraces are necessarily the place where one gets a good idea of what any faith tradition believes – having grown up on Merseyside, I am familiar with the Everton/Liverpool divide.
It would, surely, be a little perverse, to argue that it was the fewness of ones numbers which spoke to the truth and quality of one’s tradition? God’s promise to Abraham in the old covenant about the number of his descendants is implicit in the new covenant. Despite Romantic is the RCC and on your side of the divide, I have never been taken with the ‘pure remnant’ argument.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – on the matter of ‘David was a Christian’, I’m amazed that this sparked any controversy at all. I thought it was pretty standard within Christian theology that we (Christians) share the same faith as the people of faith in the Old Testament.
Perhaps we have our wires crossed – and perhaps we’re using terms in different ways, but really, I don’t see why there should be a problem with this statement.
Romans 3v25,26: God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. He did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus Christ.
He is telling us that Christ was a sacrifice of atonement both for people of faith before Christ and for people of faith after Christ. The animal sacrifices of the Old Testament presented a ‘smoke-screen’, which covered sin, but the sin was not dealt with. It was not dealt with until the crucifixion.
In Hebrews 11, he gives a loose definition of what faith is and then goes on to state that the ancients had it, listing men of great faith and what these men endured for their faith. Although he doesn’t explicitly say so, it completely destroys the context if he doesn’t mean the Christian faith. He isn’t adopting a Prince Charles style position, who once suggested that he might want to become a ‘defender of all faiths and none’ when he eventually becomes king; the underlying assumption made by the author of the Hebrews is that the ancients shared the same faith as the people to whom he was writing.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I agree that is what Paul was doing, but it turned out to have dangerous consequences such as forced conversions of the Jews, so we have, I think, to be careful with it. Christians hold that it was those faithful departed whom Christ descended into hell to save, and Orthodox iconography, which explores this theme frequently, has Adam and Even Abraham and Isaac and David as being saved. The theology of this is not often explored, and the assumption is, I think, that these ancestors accepted Christ. But there cannot be an assumption that everyone who lived in the Jewish tradition and died before the resurrection shared the faith of Christians. Well, of course, that is where the trouble lies when you appropriate the cultural traditions of others – you can do just that, and on the back of it, insist that the modern descendants should also convert.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – I was trying to go the other way. Rather than forced conversions, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to accept that there were people of faith in Old Testament times, to accept that this faith was the same as our own faith and then to try and work out why their faith was the same as our own.
In this way, you arrive at the essence of faith and you can understand why there are ‘saved’ Catholics – people of faith within the RCC, even though much of their theology seems to be ‘off the wall’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t doubt there were many of faith in the OT, or that many were saved through Christ; but I am wary of going too far. We simply cannot know who was and was not saved, but since we know the only way is though Christ, we have to assume that those who were saved came to him – at some point. That, I think, raises a problem for those who do not believe in Purgatory. Where were these people before Christ’s coming?
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
…. so you think that Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind to Purgatory?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, he was taken up in a whirlwind to heaven, according to Scripture – just as the repentant thief was in Paradise with Jesus later that day. That’s what Scripture clearly says. It does not clearly say David was a Christian or that he was saved.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon – I find this argument unbelievable. I had always assumed that it was taken for granted throughout the whole of Christianity that David was ‘saved’.
We were all reading the Psalms and deriving great encouragement from the words of a forgiven sinner – now you say he might not have been forgiven after all (because there isn’t an explicit verse in Scripture saying so) and that we might find him suffering along with the rich man (of the rich man and Lazarus).
Well, that does take the shine off the Psalms. They are no longer a book of encouragement for those of us struggling with sin and looking for God’s deliverance from it.
I can honestly say that I have never before found anybody bringing this into question.
I probably can construct a ‘proof’ that when we reach heaven we’ll find David within the number of the Saviour’s family.
With David, we don’t have any hidden sins; all the dirt in his life is before us. When he committed adultery, God communicated this to Nathan the Prophet, who ensured that it is now in Holy Scripture and is discussed in millions of churches all over the world each Sunday. So there is nothing hidden; it is an open book (unlike the person sitting next to you in church on Sunday).
We can understand from all the information that we are given, in 1st and 2nd Samuel, I Chronicles, the Psalms, that he is truly an example of one that Paul is talking about in Romans 6, who has ‘died to sin’ and is therefore ‘in Christ’. We can see that his struggles are exactly the struggles that Paul is describing for those ‘in Christ’ in his ‘wretched man’ passage (Romans 7v14 – 25). In the case of David, we know that we have accurate information about what was going on in his heart and mind.
In fact, (a) an understanding of Romans 7 tells us that David is in the number of the Saviour’s family and (b) the struggles of David with his faith then help explain to us further what Paul is on about with the ‘wretched man’ in Romans.
Of course, if you don’t like this argument, feel free to pursue an alternative line; I fully accept that there isn’t an explicit verse in Scripture stating what you would want it to say to definitively confirm the issue. The Psalms really lose their shine if you take that line.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
You are over doing what I actually said, which was that he could not be considered a Christian at the time he wrote the Psalms. That he was saved when Christ harrowed hell, I am happy to take, as so much else, on faith.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Of course he could not be considered a ‘Christian’ at that time, because nobody knew who Christ was; they had not seen with such clarity where salvation came from.
But I don’t believe David was ever in Hell in the first place; the mechanism for Salvation (according to Paul in the third of Romans) was exactly the same. Furthermore, Paul states, ‘ in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished’. This does not mean that he was in the process of punishing the sins by sending the perpetrators to Hell until Christ ‘harrowed Hell’; it means that the sins were left unpunished until they were punished in Christ.
If I were to read something similar to David’s expression of faith that we find in the Psalms in, for example, Aztec culture, I would be strongly inclined to believe that the author was a Christian even if he/she had never heard of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or of Jesus Christ. If I heard something of this nature from a Muslim, then I would begin to think that perhaps salvation was attainable through the Muslim religion – and that the person who wrote it was an example. Whenever I see something that looks like Paul’s ‘wretched man’ discourse, I believe that I see the essence of Christianity there, even if it doesn’t call itself by that name.
Of course, the two examples I gave above are purely hypothetical conditional – there doesn’t seem to be anything remotely equivalent in either of these two cultures (Aztec or Muslim) or, indeed, outside Christianity.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
If you want to know what my point is…its this;
Men are nothing. Holding them up for verneration will always let you down. And when it becomes the practice of a religion to hold men up, and make statues of then, then the whole thing is unsound.
Good brother Gareth makes fun of the tin shack Calvary Chapel. But its not a religion. Its a meeting place where there are a number of saved people. And the pastor is actually saved. I bet he cant say that about where he attends.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You do not appear to understand what a Church is. Jesus founded one (it’s in the Bible, it gave us the Bible) and it is still there. Your chapel is not that church. Get into Jesus’ Church.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Thank you for your invitation. I listen to Immaculate Heart Radio in hopes to find something. I just don’t babble on in here…I actually listen to what the CC is doing out in the world.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Good to know.
LikeLike
Gareth Thomas said:
I have no idea who is “saved” in the church of San Bartolomé in Finestrat. I would suspect it is the sixteen or seventeen ladies who gather in the side chapel to say the Rosary for half an hour before Mass, while I am still looking at Twitter in my pew before I turn my phone off and then pretend to be praying. But I may be wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Hahahahaha. You are probably more saved than the ladies making a show of piety. (;-D
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Gareth – from what you wrote about it before (in the ‘donkey blog’ about how helpful Muslims were and ho unhelpful Christians were) I think you can state, with confidence, absolutely nobody.
If you were really able to go there for three years and absolutely nobody spoke to you in all that time, then there is something thoroughly dysfunctional about the ‘fellowship’.
If I saw somebody new in church, I’d at least make a point of saying ‘hello’. Often it doesn’t come to much – some people like to keep themselves to themselves and that has to be respected; with others you find you don’t have so much in common, but there is something seriously wrong if they don’t at least make the initial effort to introduce themselves and see to it that everything is OK with the newcomer.
So, based on what you wrote, I’d give them ‘null points’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ronsstory said:
Personally, I do not get it. Maybe I have not read enough into it, but Saint Teresa herself said that if one of her nuns felt that she loved a male figure, she should not try to fight it but allow herself to love him. As long as she understands appropriate boundaries, knows when to step back, does not indulge in in appropriate thoughts, etc., then there is nothing wrong with loving another person. One can transform that love into a higher form of love – a pure charity. If they are not capable of that, then they should back off, but I find it ridiculous to assume that a religious man or woman cannot fall in love. If they understand how to manage their feelings properly, keep appropriate boundaries and distances, keep God first, etc., then that love can benefit them both greatly for it can be raised so high that it is a pure concern for the soul.
Our world is so absurd, and always drags what could be good down into the gutter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
I couldn’t beat that for a summation – thank you CNG
LikeLiked by 1 person
ronsstory said:
You are welcome. 🙂
LikeLike
Reclaiming the Sacred said:
That last comment about Saint Teresa was mine. I was logged into my private site that I am maintaining for my dying friend, wherein I am documenting all of the things that I have been seeing with him. I forgot to log out. You can delete it and post it here. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I will do that. My prayers for you and your friend 🙏🏻
LikeLiked by 1 person
ronsstory said:
Thank you so much. I appreciate it greatly. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Trying to bring this back to the subject of JPII and the BBC’s attempt at a sex scandal:
The only reason this might have a hope of achieving anything at all is that they entirely ignore his part in the downfall of Communism.
I’ll briefly precis an article I read in ‘Polityka’ magazine last year. In 1970, Willy Brandt made a very important gesture when he visited Poland, kneeling at the monument for the war dead. This paved the way for Germany to formally accept the post-war borders (where ‘Breslau’ was now in Poland and renamed ‘Wroclaw’, for example). This in turn led the Catholic church in Germany to accept that these areas now belonged to a Polish diocese, which in turn led to sufficient harmony within the church to elect John Paul II as pontiff. As Pontiff, he exercised the power he had wisely and this played a crucial role in the downfall of communism in Poland, which in turn led to the re-unification of Germany.
(I may have misunderstood a lot of it – google translator wasn’t very helpful for much of the article).
Faced with this overwhelming contribution, it would seem rather petty to start muck-raking over claims of sexual impropriety.
Of course, if the only matter of concern is the fact that JPII was a ‘traditional’ Catholic, who wrote about ‘The Theology of the Body’ (rather important, but by no means the whole of his output), then these issues suddenly have much more importance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
You call attention to an important point. The Communist authorities were well aware of this relationship and did their best to find evidence to smear JP II. They found none. Foolishly, perhaps, the failed to see the BBC gambit – innuendo, innuendo – but then perhaps the ‘Carry On’ films don’t play well in Poland?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jock McSporran said:
Yes – it’s completely clear that the communists had informers within the church and it’s very difficult to believe that they were not well informed. It’s very difficult to believe that they did not have this information and impossible to believe that they would not have used it if there had been serious evidence of anything improper.
One of the bigger issues in Poland was the revelation (approximately 10 years ago) of just how many RCC clergy had, in fact, been Communist informers.
LikeLiked by 2 people