Tags
Appeasement is not a word to be used lightly by anyone of my generation – we saw its results in our childhood, with the bombed out cities and the austerity, but it is hard to think of a better term to describe the decision by a County Court Judge that a Pakistani man cannot take his son to church because it upsets his mother, who is a Muslim. The man himself is a ‘non-practising’ Muslim, but found after his divorce that the local Christian community embraced him and his son, who likes going to the leisure centre run by a local church. But his ex-wife ‘insisted that their son could “become confused” if exposed to religions other than Islam – a notion the boy’s father rejects’. The Judge accepted her argument and the father cannot take his son to the church or its leisure centre.
Clearly we have here only one side of the argument, but let us look for a moment at the idea that the boy could ‘become confused’ if exposed to other religions than Islam. Perhaps the mother should take the child back to Pakistan, where, as events in Lahore this morning show, the Taliban have their own way of ensuring that no one gets confused by other religions – going to the trouble of planting a bomb in a park to target Christian children and their parents celebrating Easter. Meanwhile, in Glasgow, a Muslim shopkeeper was stabbed to death by a Pakistani man hours after posting a message on his Facebook page wishing his ‘beloved Christian nation’ a happy Easter. The man’s family are now in hiding, fearful of their lives. This seems one of the results of not allowing children to know about other religions. So how thoughtful of the Judge to ensure that another child will not be exposed to disturbing ideas such as tolerance, ecumenism and religious freedom.
And yes, before we get all hot under the collar, let us remember those within our own churches who are not that far away, mentally, from these people. I saw, in Belfast, what happens when Christian children are brought up in enclosed communities where they are taught that it is a sin to depart in any way from the strict letter of whatever law it is the church leaders set down. I remember talking to a Catholic boy when I was about 12, and he said he really shouldn’t be talking to me, because I was a ‘proddy’ and was going to go to hell – Father Flannery had told him that, and Father was a saintly man who had ensured his sister got sent off to the Magdalene laundries for the sin of getting herself pregnant out of marriage. I got a ticking off from the local Minister for talking to the Catholic boy, who was a spawn of Satan and a follower of the whore of Babylon. If I fail to share the rose-tinted view of the past of some here, it is because that sectarian past was far from rose-tinted. That little Catholic boy grew up to plant bombs which killed people we both knew, and but for the Grace of God, I could have gone the same way.
Like that poor little Pakistani boy, we were kept away from children who worshipped differently than we did; like that Pakistani shopkeeper, we were berated if we wished a Catholic ‘happy Easter’ – and yes, God help us – like those Pakistani Taliban, I knew people who called themselves Christians who took up arms to kill others in ‘the cause’. If I am wary of legalism in religion, it is because I have seen where it can lead. On the rare occasions I go to Belfast nowadays, I am amazed at its modernity – it seems like any other city elsewhere – until you to some of the places where it isn’t.
Quite how it can be that any Christian can genuinely believe that Jesus would be in favour of treating others who confess his name badly because they don’t do as I do, I fail to grasp any more. when I was a young man, I was taught that we, alone, had the right way, and that it was an act of Christian love to tell others they were wrong, and to make them see things our way. It was, I came to realise, the mind set of narrow sectarianism, which was so far from the love of Christ, that it had done what Paul forbade, it placed salvation on the back of the strict letter of the law and not faith. What was it we were so frightened of that we wanted to insist on the sound of our own voices and drown out those of others? Where had Jesus said so? The one time he resorted to violence was driving the moneylenders out of the Temple – to listen to some of my preachers in my youth, you’d have thought it was his main activity.
I hope the story about the little boy is exaggerated, and if not, that common sense prevails. If we appease those who wish to destroy us, if we forget our common humanity and insist on our identity as a Catholic, a Protestant or a Muslim, then we risk going further down a road which, having been down, I do not recommend.
JessicaHof said:
Hope you and the family had a good Easter Geoffrey.
There’s a great deal of sense in what you say. It is easy to forget that the rules are for guidance, not a substitute for the love of Christ. We can know and obey all laws, we can be wise as Solomon, we can observe every ordinance there is – and without love we are nothing.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Thanks lass – I hope you did too.
I just don’t know sometimes. Like you, I am not a convert, so I have no idea what makes someone go from one church to another until they find one which suits them – but I do know things change, and what suits at one point will change.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
I am struck by the number of converts to the RCC who are complaining about their own Pope. I have no idea what they expect the rest of us to do – they opted to join that church, if they thought it was set in stone they ought to have done more reading or something before converting. Pope Francis is immensely popular, which in itself, seems to be a cause of complaint. It is as though they think that being deeply unpopular is a virtue?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
If they thought the RCC was never going to change, they needed to know more history. It claims never to change, and does constantly – it’s the secret of its huge success.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
You are smarter than that, Jess. The RCC has had some rather reprehensible Popes in its history as you know. Are we to celebrate them all or do we subjegate ourselves to the office rather than the man? If he should take many of his novel changes in practice and then codify them, ex-cathedra, as a new teaching he would be declared a heretic and would henceforth be remembered as an anti-pope. That’s how it works. As it stands now, yes, the world praises him but his actions and practices largely are in direct opposition to Catholic teaching. You praise that. But many Catholics are wary of the man; his coziness with marxists, communists (the bane of Catholicism, and center of the Fatima apparitions), atheists, modernist progressives and instituting practices that are seemingly in opposition to Catholic teaching and that should worry a great deal of Catholic folks.
And yes, ex-cathedra teaching is written in stone. That is how this faith has continued on, holding all that Christ taught, rather than thinking that everything is as maleable as putty. Is Chalcedon among those whom you deride for changing faiths as well? Did he not read enough about the Church; did I not know what I was getting into to?
Nobody says that popularity in the world has any worth in and of itself. Popular or unpopular is not a basis of anything. Such a statement about unpopularity being a virtue is simply slander. JPII was popular and orthodox. BXVI was unpopular and orthodox. Adherence to the Truths of the Faith is what has true divine worth as you already know. Obedience to Truth, in season and out of season, is the hallmark.
You seem lately to have taken on much of the prejudice against Catholics (and men) that Geoffrey speaks of here. I find it rather interesting that you seem to have taken on a vindictive approach to Catholics who hold to their faith when clearly we are in the fight of our lives against the modernism of this world as expressed by the dissident bishop such as Kasper and the other German’s and against this seeming protestantizing of our faith. And no, I did not leave my childhood protestant church to join another protestant church. I wanted to join the Catholic faith. Non-Catholic opinion on the pope is not really relevant to Catholics who will judge, not on appearance, but on words and deeds juxtaposed against a backdrop of defined teachings and the Holy Traditions of the Catholic Faith.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
This is, I am afraid, not a problem for me. I don’t find the non RC’s here complaining about their leader and making unkind comments about him. There have always been differing views within your church. If you want to move to a more Gallican position than you perhaps held under John Paul II and Benedict XVI, fine.
You and others say he is not practising catholic teaching, he and many of your Bishops say otherwise, that’s, again, an internal problem for you guys. I can remember liberal catholics complaining under John Paul II and Benedict XVI saying what they were doing was not Catholic teaching – no idea how a non-Catholic is to know which of you is right. From outside it looks a mess.
Some, vocal, Catholics, disapprove, many more approve. No idea what that proves, but it doesn’t seem a bad thing for your church to be getting a good press after so many bad years.
No one appears to be able to agree on a list of ex cathedra pronouncements, they seem to vary according to the views of the person talking about them.
I don’t notice C complaining about the Pope or criticising the Church here – so I guess he knew what he was getting into and is happy. My comments were meant for those of you who complain constantly about your own Church. It really doesn’t look good.
You say JP was popular but orthodox, yet on this very blog he’s been slated for Assisi and kissing the Koran – I guess there’s always someone more traditionalist than the next traditionalist?
I am not against the Catholic Church, but am sceptical that it is what you and other self-identified traditionalists here claim it is. It is what you say, but it is what Francis and your bishops say – or are they all wrong, and are life long Catholics less Catholic than converts. We all know the phenomenon of converts thinking they are more Catholic than life long Catholics, and I am wondering if that is what is happening here.
You’re right, my view on your Pope is irrelevant, but your view seems disrespectful to him – is he not set apart to judge you? Are you set apart that you can judge him? That’s what worries me. It also worries me that any criticism, even if it defends your Pope, gets interpreted as being anti-Catholic – you know better than that my friend.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Never been a Gallican; always pointed out what seemed to go against tradition and defined teaching; including some things that JPII and BXVI said or did. But as to their writings which will outlive us all, they were orthodox teaching.
The Church says that if you are in mortal sin you cannot receive the Holy Eucharist; these people say the opposite. The Church says contraception is a mortal sin but these say it is OK. You decide. Many other examples available upon request.
I love the penchant that you and others love to use against the convert. Yes, there are times when newly formed converts are so filled with zeal that they can be a bit over-bearing. However, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to notice that the dearth of Catholic teaching among the lifers of the Catholic Church is abysmal. Most are cultural Catholics at best. Yes, converts, on a whole, if they came of their own study and conviction, know much more about Catholicism than the average pew sitter. We actually read the Catechism and many of the encyclicals of the Church. These cultural Catholics are largely cold in their faith and zealous for social change.
I do not disrespect the Pope as offic holder. But as a man who is re-igniting the fires of the smoldering dung left in the wake of the Spirit of Vatican Two crowd, he is not be be admired.
It is not that you defend the Pope that is frustrating, dear friend. It is on WHAT things that you defend him. You defend him for things that are not Catholic but Protestant. You defend him as the smoke once again is starting to choke us as the Spirit of VII is gleefully reawakening because of his off-the-cuff talks and his changes in practice. Yes, that is offensive to me.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
But isn’t that the problem? Who interprets tradition? It isn’t a thing like a font or a candlestick, it changes and it has always changed.
Once the only people who were Christians were Jews, and the only Apostles Jewish men. We know that there was a lot of fuss in the early church when the Pope changed the date on Easter, with those who were disciples of St John saying that was not how he had held it? Always the question of interpretation.
Who is the Church in this? Clearly you discount the ‘Vatican II crowd’ – whoever they are. Your bishops and your Popes have not said that politicians who back abortion should be excluded from communion, but it seems to me you are saying you know better than they do unless I am misreading you?
Isn’t it odd when you have to end up criticising an awful lot of your fellow Catholics for knowing nothing about their faith. Might it not be that a lot of these life long Catholics just live a faith from the heart and not from a book? What’s so wrong with social change that you seem to think it a bad thing? Can that desire not spring from a bias to the poor, about whom Our Lord spoke rather more than he did about which Mass he preferred?
Is it really a good thing to talk about parts of your church as ‘smouldering dung’? Please look at the way you are talking about fellow Catholics, because it does come across as overbearing – they are all wrong, and you and others who interpret tradition one way are right.
If you really think your Pope is igniting the smoke of satan, that’s a pretty serious allegation. It is, of course, up to you and your fellow catholics, but reading you and Fr Z and the rest, I can’t imagine anyone thinking ‘yes, the RCC, that’s a good option – see how they love each other’. Please reflect on the things you say here about your fellow Catholics. If that’s how you feel about them, is that the sign Jesus talked of when he said we would be known as his disciples for our love for each other?
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Interpretation of the date of Easter is the same as interpreting that contraception is now OK? Let’s not make light of the serious issues, Jess. And yes our JPII and BXVI did say that these pro-abort politicians could be denied communion and avoid public scandal and a few pastors did. But most do not.
I complain about the “Spirit of Vatican II Crowd” if you read correctly. You should be aware of their earmarks by now. And yes, anyone with a sense of their faith notwithstanding propriety and dignity, knows better than the James Carroll’s and Kaspers of the world.
Unlike you, I expected what Christ told me to expect, which was scandal and the attacks of Satan against His Church. So I do not find it strange at all that once confirmed I would be in the fight both in the world and within the Church for orthodox teaching; constantly looking for the weaknesses being exploited by the evil one. I’m not a ‘yes’ man as you seem to celebrate: the Everything is Beautiful church ou yours is anything but, BTW. I became a Catholic because I believe it is the Church founded by Christ and that all that it definitively teaches is inerrant. I will gladly go against my own parishioners, priests or bishops when they try to demolish this Barque given to us after 2000 years.
If social change is to now embrace the mortal enemies of Christ found in the ideologies of Communism and to admonish Catholics who teach the faith as given as those who teach ‘pious nonsense’ . . . stays mute in the face of SSM social changes in Ireland and Italy . . . I am critical. This is pure socio-political posturing that has nothing to do with the salvation of souls. This is not a bias toward the poor. The truly poor, are those Catholics who are being denied the fullness of their faith by their own leadership. If I come accross as you depict then I will only speak of the saints and holies of the Catholic Church from now on. But it is in response to you . . . that these come out. For you are not raising the specter of the many holy martyrs and saints but you praise anything and anyone who is causing rebellion against the time honored teachings of the faith.
Yes, and thank God for the Fr. Z’s of the world and all the saints throughout the history of the Church that fought corruption to the faith in the face of overwhelming odds. Christ always wins out in the end.
If others respond as you say, rejecting the RCC for resisting the modernism of our day then they are indifferent to Christianity and the purity of Faith. Christianity and especially Confirmation is to give us the fortitude (a great Christian virtue) to withstand the onslaught.
You can kumbaya all you want, Jess, but it does not reflect the realities of the crisis and attacks of satan that are so rife in the world today; within and without our churches; especially in the Catholic Church.
Have no misgiving, fighting for the purity of the Faith is a show of love for both God and for each other. Indifference is hatred.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
All these things need interpreting, and across time your own church has interpreted them in different ways – was my point; am I wrong? Has it always taken the same view?
Your own spiritual leaders allow these Catholic politicians to take communion, so what use were the words of your Popes on such matters? Again, this is an internal problem for you. Your bishops either know more than you do, or they deserve your censure. In the first instance, perhaps you don’t know something they do? In the latter, they aren’t very good bishops. Either way, one group of catholics is getting it in the neck from another group.
If you have problems with your own Cardinals, fine, that’s another internal problem. From outside it creates the impression of an utter mess in which laymen claim to know more than Cardinals and the Pope- which if true makes one wonder what the point of an hierarchical church with a Magisterium actually is? It sounds like my church – every one has an opinion – the only difference is none of us can insist we know better than the other.
To my mind, on of the ways in which satan attacks is to make us say bad things about other Christians – we can think it in the name of ‘tough love’, but it does no good to them and perhaps makes us spiritually proud of our greater knowledge.
To attack others as ‘the V2 crowd’ and to talk of ‘kumbya’ is simply to indulge in stereotypes surely? Who does it help? Who are these people who fit your stereotypes? They use similar language about those who hold your views. It’s a pretty unedifying spectacle, not least when your own Magisterium and hierarchy seem not to agree with you.
I don’t know how anyone possesses the knowledge of what is in the hearts of others to say that a concern with social justice has nothing to do with the saving of souls, which is what I take away from comments here. It seems to me Oscar Romero was closer to the model of Jesus than many of his critics – and he is now a holy martyr. Are you saying he was wrong and your church is wrong to have made him a saint?
I am not sure what you mean about being mute in the face of SSM. In Ireland the church did speak out, and it was roundly ignored by the democratic will of the people. A people haunted by the memory of what the country was like when your Church had a major part in governing it. These are the messy realities of the world outside the catechetical class, and in Ireland, about which I know a bit, it was the excesses of the old hierarchy which led to the sort of result we saw in the SSM referendum. Few felt that the bishops had any moral authority after decades of cover ups. These were the real attacks of satan – and as we know, too many of those in positions ‘set aside’ did nothing. You don’t get to speak with moral authority when you’ve presided over something like that.
There is a reason Ireland now rejects Catholic interference in its politics – and that’s the record of the church. Those are the messy facts, and getting the rubrics right and washing the right feet on Maundy Thursday (which the Irish church was brilliant at) don’t seem to have been a help in the real world. They might have been better singing about love than talking about it whilst covering up crimes, surely?
We hear, all the time, about fighting for the purity of the faith – but do you not see that it is precisely the contrast between that rhetoric and the messy facts which mean there is no country in the world where the voice of the RCC now counts for much in political life.
It is all very well blaming communists and the rest, but it was not communists who ran the church in Ireland, or who supported Pinochet in Chile or Peron in Argentina.
It seemed to me that JP II and Benedict got much of this and apologised for past misdeeds, Francis gets it too. Until repentance is seen to be sincere, no one much is listening – and those of us who are see Catholics berating each other. Not a good witness, and I can’t see what good you, or anyone else, thinks it’s doing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
It’s making those of us not Catholics think – uum, let’s walk by quietly and see if we can serve Christ in some more useful way than slagging off fellow church members.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Where have been? The hierarchy does hold this; did you not read the outcome of the Synod? Have you not read Burke or Athanasius Schneider, JPII or BXVI? It is not that they laity is saying that we know more than the hierarchy it is that the hierarchy is itself in the throes of a battle for the soul of the Church. You side with modernists and I side with Tradition. I have that freedom as does every Catholic. If in your church you look to opinions and beliefs in truth as subjective then so be it. It is different in the Catholic Church where we hold our truths to be Objective Truth.
You, did not join the Catholic Church becuase you saw in it the “spirit of VII” types and felt uncomfortable . . . likeing your smells and bells from the Anglican Church. I, on the other hand and many more like me, saw the True Church and wanted to join. We also saw that she was at war, as She always is, with the world, the flesh and the devil. Now am I to stay out because of this? Or do I take up arms and come to Her defense. It is why I took up apologetics and teaching. If I took your view, I would not have even become Christian. I am not afraid . . . Christ gave His Church guarantees. If it fails, then Christ is hoax.
How far apart are the Socialists, Peronists and Marxists from Communism, Jess? They are of the same ideological makeup.
I am sure we would all be better off to stop the good Bishops and Priests from speaking. I am but a small voice with few who listen. But if you think that simply rolling over for an avalanche of Modernism is the right way to act and that silence in the face of obvious wrongs is right then that is your opinion. What these people you like to make fun of are doing, thanks be to God, is feed those who are shell-shocked at the changes that this storm has produced. If you can’t see the good then I feel very sorry for you. Truth is not worth the fighting I guess . . . do not count me among like minded folk. If that seems too harsh to you, fine and dandy, for I was never one to go along just to get along.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
No, I hadn’t realised the Pope had published the official document. I had thought we were still in the game where one lot of Bishops were claiming they had won and another lot were saying no, they had; I saw that a lot in the playground. Is there a link to the official document?
I am struck by your constant need to categorise those who do not agree with you: we have had ‘steaming dung’, communists, Vatican 2 crowd and modernists. Do real people actually fit into these models, or are they simply a vehicle for caricaturing your fellow catholics?
We try to be a bit more respectful of each other, but don’t always succeed. Some things are indeed defined truths – nearly all of them are in the Nicene Creed. What we don’t do, and what quite a lot of your bishops don’t do, is to insist that one version of tradition trumps everything.
Your argument over the ‘tradition’ of foot washing, was a food example. From 1570 to 1955 it was not even a part of the Mass, and it wasn’t known before the twelfth century, and yet you wrote as though it had been done the way you liked for ever. What you were really doing was pointing to what had been done at one point in the church’s history and insisting it could not be changed. It has been changed over the years, the Pope was simply following that pattern. You can call this modernism, but you seem to call everything of which you disapprove that – which rather takes away any sting – it becomes an all purpose term of abuse for anyone who dares not agree with you.
No, I am not a modernist, I am an Anglican, and I follow my church as a faithful daughter. If I disagree with my bishop (and believe me, as Neo knows, boy do I do that) I keep it to myself. He may actually be right and I may actually be wrong – we can both cherry pick traditions across two thousand years.
It was the RCC bishops who supported Peron and Pinochet, and I think you will not find they were Vatican II types. They mistook their religion for their right wing politics and ended up backing the regime which killed Romero. They backed Franco and Salazar. If these are not distinguishable from communism to you, they are to me – in its very bones, Fascism is anti-communist.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
He hasn’t. But you do understand that nothing is going to change in the teaching, thanks to the outcome of the Bishops. That it will be undermined by this Pope’s allowances and dispensations is almost expected.
I never once used “Vatican II Crowd” for the umpteenth time. And no, of course not, nobody is a Communist or a Progressive or a Modernist; at least in your make believe world of wine and roses and bowls of cherries. Ideologies do not exist without people, populating them. Are some Catholics? To our shame, yes.
Oscar Romero. Hmm. And Pope Francis was and is arguably a Peronist and backs the Castro brothers who slaughtered and tortured their way through history; a supporter of ‘redistribution of wealth’ and ‘global warming’ and ‘open borders: along with the likes of Obama and George Soros. So what? Mistakes are made by nations, churches and people who do not see the ramifications of what the support or condemn.
You love to go the ethereal traditions mode when it pleases you. I gave you specific ‘teaching’ which is unassailable within the Church which has been weakened and those who have supported the change in unchageable teaching.
Why do I speak of ideologies that are present in the world and in the Church? Because they are quite apparent unless one is blind.
You also love to shift into reverse and look at the past in order that you do not have to look at the present or better to use it to condemn the Church. The great workers of novelty though are not examined as such. They are the good guys in your eyes.
Thank you very much but I will still hold esteem Bishop Sheen, Garrigou-LaGrange, Pardre Pio, Von Hildebrand and the like and not toss them overboard for those who would destroy all the truths they would have given their lives for.
You have given your personal and unflattering assessment of me here and that is fine. If you find that I should be silent about those who assail the Church with novelty after novelty then I will gladly depart from this realm. For if I am here for any reason it is to argue for the correctness of Church Teaching not for novelties that I would like. If what I say is seen by you to be meaningless rock-throwing for my own satisfaction and my own opinion, then there is no reason to argue here at AATW.
The well may have been poisoned for good debate here I fear. The deafening silence of other Catholics and more traditional minded Protestants may well be proof of that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
If you cannot see that your way of talking about your fellow Catholics who disagree with you is derogatory in the extreme, I simply have to say it is. Whatever your precise wording, you constantly imply they have the worst of motives, and it never seems to occur to you they may also be sincerely convinced that they are fighting for the good of the Church. There was a time when taking communion on the tongue was a novelty, there was a time when having the Mass in Latin was a novelty, there was a time when saying the Mass in the vernacular was a novelty – novelties quickly become tradition. You seem to think everyone of them is bad and intended to undermine your church. Your Pope and many of your Cardinals and Bishops do not agree, and I do them the honour of thinking they are sincere, as you are; you seem to need to attribute the worst of motives to them.
Your own Church says Romero is a saint. Are you disagreeing with it? You cite the Castros, I cite Pinochet, Peron and a host of Latin American dictators, and Franco and salazar, all supported by traditionalists – my point is simple – there is fault on both sides, and it is you who use these simple labels as though they were real, not me.
Why is it not possible to hold all sorts of catholics in high esteem? This is not a political party – is it?
My assessment is not meant to be flattering, it is meant to ask you to think about how you come across. I know you well enough and am extremely fond of you – which is why it distresses me that you are coming across as a dogmatist who condemns all Catholics who disagree with him. I try to give those who disagree with me the credit for believing they are doing good – are you doing that here?
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
You make it harder than it needs to be: it is a clash between Orthodoxy and unorthodoxy. Do I ascribe good intentions to those who promote the latter? No, I do not though they have many an unwitting ally that can easily be manipulated. It is ignorance of the Teachings of Church that allows for their complicity. As to the movers and shakers: it does not come without consequence and guilt. They know what they are doing. It is the difference of why humanity was afforded a Savior and the fallen angels were not.
To you last statement, apparently you do not think so and therefore I will desist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Yes indeed, Jessica, although I see Dave as a great ally and other traditionalists. However, I’ve come to find that in conversation with Q, for example, I cannot call myself a traditionalist.
I just recently had a discussion with Michigan Man on his blog about praying the rosary, which I am fond of doing. However, he made it explicit that the Luminous mysteries were not a part of the rosary being written by Pope John Paul II. Now, I don’t think Michigan Man is a convert, but these points I do come across often from converts. I grow tired of these traditionalist barbs–even the subtle one’s as Michigan Man didn’t put Pope (ST.) John Paul II. Now, it’s important to note he may just have omitted the (St.) part for no reason; however, I’ve noticed that traditionalist often times refuse to call him a Saint. However, they are rejecting the wisdom of the Church in this regard.
Furthermore, as I explained about the rosary, it was added by Apostolic letter; therefore, I will certainly follow the wisdom of a Pope–named a Saint–rather than a traditionalist.
Of course, when discussing matters, such as pastoral reform and doctrine. I’ve attempted to support doctrine but have been okay with certain changes. I think this is wisdom; however, I’ve been told by convert traditionalists–there is only the Catholic way. I’m flabbergasted! I literally think, “Who is this newbie telling a practicing cradle Catholic if he’s Catholic or not?”
However, regardless of my feeling at those times, I must not rush to anger. I must see the wisdom in their zeal, even if they do not see the wisdom in my temperance. My patience comes from time, which as a cradle Catholic, I’ve had my lifetime to learn.
On the topic of Pope Francis, I often simply ask, “Show me his heresy?” I think to a certain degree he has created confusion, which doesn’t help the faith. However, his year of Mercy has been a great renewal for the faith. A return to the wisdom of the confessional and forgiveness. I think these are Catholic and he deserves praise for placing such importance on this sacrament. However, these intentions from the Pope that I love are not what I believe Dave takes issue with.
I always attempt to build bridges of peace. However, I agree with parts of Vatican II–like the vernacular mass. I do see wisdom though in what Dave speaks about other practices like Extraordinary Eucharistic ministers. My Parish uses them; however, I think they could do without–especially when I receive communion from the H.S. aged girl wearing leggings and passing out the Lord’s sacrament.
This comment has been all over the place, overall, I respect Dave and Chalcedon for differing reasons.
**Oh and Jess, I’ve been working on a post on the historicity of Moses. I was wondering if it could be posted on here somehow. I was interested to have comments from differing Christian backgrounds as the topic is in works for my thesis
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Yes, it could be posted. C will have your email address and will be in touch.
I sympathise with everything you say. It just seems to me to go to what Geoffrey is writing about that some people have the nerve to tell others what they should believe to be a proper Catholic. Paul seemed to think an absence of love made you a bad Christian, however much you knew. And I don’t remember him caveating it with the word ‘tough’ either. But I have noticed love is far too hard for many people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
I do not discount that love is needed, but it must be the love of Christ. As it is written, ” it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” Therefore, we must attempt to live as Christ, and even though he showed the woman love who was to be stoned, he still replied, “go and sin no more.”
There are certainly better ways than others on how to inform. Also, I usually tend to use my life as example rather than point out flaws in others.
In the end of the day, I have to trust in the Grace of God to help others. Although, I can certainly pray for it, which in many ways, I could argue is more productive than most actions.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jock McSporran said:
Jessica – do you have a problem with the number of Manchester United supporters complaining about their manager?
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
What is Manchester united?
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
It is one of the main religions in England, probably with more followers than Anglicanism.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
They sound a complaining lot from what you say – and that is really England’s national pastime – complaining 🙂
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
if SOMEONE CONVERTS TO CATHOLICISM, THE SKY IS THE LIMIT TO WHAT EVER ELSE THEY THINK.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
You’re not always wrong lad.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Mother Angelica has gone to her reward. I hope she found Jesus befor she bit it. If she died expecting Mary to pray for her, well she will have her reward.
LikeLiked by 1 person
oharaann said:
Mother Angelica is a great example to us of what God can do when we put all our trust in Him.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Amen, Geoffrey. Although I tend to the Charmley school of the original appeasement, that in some ways it was a method to gain time to rearm.
In the stories you tell, as in many others, that is always the outcome. whether it’s Christian-Jew, Christian- Moslem, Catholic-Protestant, or any other pairing, the end is always the same. They become the other, and subhuman, and fit only for extermination. I don’t know about other versions, but that is not what my Bible teaches.
As to the Moslem mother, well, she obviously has little confidence in Allah, if she thinks talking about Christianity will confuse her son. One lesson that America has for us is that when religions are on an equal footing, Christianity wins, because it is about life, not death. It would be helpful though if we remembered that, as Jess says, to start with love and not condemnation.
In fact, as always, I think Jess summarized perfectly.
I too, hope that you had a most wonderful Easter.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Thank you Neo. You too.
If we narrow our view to that of our church, what we actually usually do is narrow it to the narrow end of that church. I read some of Fr Z – he needs to get a life – bitches about everything under the sun. If the guy doesn’t approve of his current Pope and bishops, surely he can find some church suits his views better? Frank, after all, has been an RCC all his life, so the guy must know something about it – clearly less than converts, who seem to know everything sometimes!
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Yep, I’ve read some of him, although not lately. I quit when a friend, a very conservative (traditional, whatever) Catholic’s spiritual advisor told her his blog was hurting her spiritual life. I think it was mine as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
A bit of fun is one thing, but how some folk can keep bitching for years on end is beyond me – if Christ makes you bitch, it isn’t Christ you’ve been focussing on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
I agree completely.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
DMW had been a Catholic all his life as well. Also most of our anti-popes.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Yes, clearly they’re a miserable bunch and needed converts to tell them how it should be.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Aye, I guess we should all be good boys and girls and sit quietly by in complete indifference to any calamity befalling the Church. Everybody, whether they say exactly the opposite of others, should be met with a nod of approval and a broad smile.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Seems to me that most of your fellow catholics are just that – and you don’t like it and you don’t like them for not sounding off. It may just be that they feel fine with things, and may even be that that is fine.
Can’t see all the Fr Z stuff getting anywhere except to make the rest of us think your church looks a bit like a sack full of kilkenny cats.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
My faith is worth fighting for Geoffrey and I would assume that you would feel the same way. I find it funny that you have gone from the “Pope Frank” stance and the condemning of the radical “German Bishops” to a new rainbow Church or kumbayas or indifference. I think I know you better than that. You would never accept such foolishness in your own denomination and were you Catholic you would fight the good fight to preserve the faith. Fr. Z and others do this on a daily basis and there have always been and always will be those who find it worth fighting for; it is where most of our saints have been before us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
No, what I have done is to make friendly criticisms from outside, but to draw back form condemning whole groups of folk about whose souls I know nowt.
I get edgy – I have seen where the desire to ‘fight’ for the faith leads – I’ve watched Christians plant bombs fighting for the faith, convinced that was their only way to stop Papists taking over their state. I’ve watched Catholics do the same for the opposite reason – in the name of Catholic Ireland. When you’ve seen where this mind set can lead in reality, you get wary of the rhetoric.
Sure, its where saints have been, it’s also where a hell load of sinners have been.
All I can say is that from outside, it looks like your church is a mess. It happens with big churches, hierarchies and bishops with palaces. It happens any way, but there’s more room for harm when men wear special clothes and thing they are set apart from others.
Paul did tent mending – it would do some of his successors good to join him. Stop them doing whatever it is they are doing instead. I never understood how a bishop used his time – the ones I know seem to chair a lot of committees – just like Paul did? I think not. The real Apostolic model of the house church and the elders serving others is a better one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Our Church looks like a mess because it is. We have some in the hierarchy that sound like they belong in the American Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church. We have no condemnations for those speak or promote things that are not Catholic and never were Cathoic and never will be Catholic. Whatever your thoughts are desires to return to a house church . . . that is not the reality and the Lord of History seems to disagree with you as well. The house Church we envision is within a nuclear family of faith. But the larger Church is still trying to find its place: but somehow this new foray into politics seems to smell of something we were roundly condemned for in our past. If we are to be something in society it must be the moral and spiritual voice and a haven from the smuttiness of this world.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bosco the Great said:
Religions. Its about as much fun watching religions implode as it is watching Donald Trump and Cruz (;-D
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Geoffrey – I think you’re taking the wrong message from this.
Christianity, for all its faults, has presented a more attractive and humane face than the Muslim religion to this man, even though he is a ‘non-practising Muslim’.
The hard-line Muslims (of course) are filling their trousers over this – just like the apostle Paul, when he was still Saul, before his conversion on the road to Damascus.
What you should be drawing from this is the following: the next great Christian revival will take place among the Muslim communities in Christian countries. You should expect revival; you should also expect resistance.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
I see that message easily enough. I agree. But the other message is there to me too. I have seen, first hand, where this narrow sectarian view of the world leads.
To many, all this is theory – when you lived in Belfast in the fifties and again in the late sixties, it’s real – and frightening. I got out because I saw men I’d been to church with defending the use of bombs in the name of Jesus. The IRA did the same. Ministers and Priests on both sides deserve to be frying in hell for what they did – and I can only hope they repented and came to Christ before they died – some of the things I sae and heard from clerics on both sides reminds me of what I hear from the Taliban.
I renounced satan when I was baptised. I renounce him still. Not sure about some folk though.
LikeLiked by 2 people
NEO said:
I like Geoffrey see both points here. It’s true, those exposed properly to Christianity almost always end up there. It’s always been true, since our forefathers in faith went out in the world. I hope you’re right Jock, and you may well be, but it would be very useful if we quit beating on each other as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
NEO – I tried replying, but it seemed to vanish – this may look like a duplicate.
Essentially, the people whom Geoffrey describes do not fear God. I’m thinking of Mendelsson’s chorus (the one immediately after Elijah restores the child to life)
Blessed are the men who fear him,
they ever walk in the way of peace.
Even through the darkness light arises, light to the upright.
He is gracious, He is compassionate, He is righteous.
This is a very loose paraphrase of Psalm 112 (if indeed it is based on Psalm 112); ‘blessed are the men who fear him; they ever walk in the ways of peace’ isn’t exactly the Psalm. Also, the Psalm (at least NIV) seems to ascribe gracious, compassionate, righteous to the upright man rather than to God.
The point is that walking in the way of peace is a corollary of fearing God, so the people Geoffrey describes do not fear God. The apostle Paul writes, ‘If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.’ This doesn’t describe those whom Geoffrey is describing; these people, whatever they may imagine, are at enmity with God.
The miracle is that despite such a background, where God is slandered and ‘Christians’ do their level best to make Christianity look distasteful and vile, you get serious committed Christians such as Geoffrey coming out of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Perhaps, I don’t have the experience you guys do. But there is so much wastage. Yes, Christianity thrives, and always has under adversity, but this internecine struggling does little good, except to make us all look like fools, internally it may have a place. But in a hierarchical church, especially an authoritative one, it’s for the hierarchy to decide, not those of us with butts in the pews.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
NEO – well, the experience is actually somewhat alien to me too. I think you have to come from either Ulster or else Glasgow to have some real experience of what Geoffrey is describing.
I spent a few years in Cork. On my first Sunday there, I tried going along to the Presbyterian church, where the minister was Northern Irish and the congregation were heavily into Free Masonry (I didn’t know that at the time) and I left that church service before the end with a deep inward sympathy for Sinn Fein, fully understanding that if I had been born and brought up there, I might have been an active member of Sinn Fein. That is what one service at the Cork Presbyterian Church did for me.
My allegiance during these years was to the Cork Baptist church, an excellent fellowship. One day, however, some visitors came from ‘the north’, arrogantly telling us what to do and I said that if they were ever invited back again, I’d not only leave the fellowship, but I’d seriously consider joining Sinn Fein. Curiously, other members of that fellowship were left with a similar sense of loathing of the visitors from the north. So I’d say there is something very weird going on in Ulster that does engender unhealthy feelings and gut reactions, even in the best of us, even in those of us who love God and do our best to love our enemies and forgive from the heart.
The ‘Church of Ireland’ (Anglican) cathedral in Cork looked to me as if it had been built to the glory of the English occupying forces rather than anything else.
So I can relate to some extent with what Geoffrey is saying.
I had another friend from Northern Ireland who belonged to the Plymouth Brethern. In the 1960’s, his wife was a primary school teacher, but she got kicked out when they discovered that she was a Brethern lady (and neither Church of Ireland (Anglican) or Presbyterian) – so the fellow I knew always voted Sinn Fein in the elections. There was something seriously disturbed there.
All of this is purely anecdotal. I can’t put my finger on anything, but it chimes in with what Geoffrey is writing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Oh well – some error – it isn’t letting me reply to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
Well, this got here, at least! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
A salutary story Geoffrey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JohnK said:
Well, I do wonder sometimes. As a would-be orthodox Anglican, I would truly love to have the problems the orthodox RC has to deal with.
And to what extent is Pope F not orthodox as some claim? Any time I check up, it seems that what he said was just fine, but some muppet journalist mis-reported what he said for sensation-seeking reasons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve Brown said:
I can assume you believe in man-made climate change, also.
LikeLike
JohnK said:
why not? It’s scientific orthodoxy, LOL, perfect for a pope.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
Geoffrey, I would have to ask what your govt. thought 30-40 years ago when it started allowing muslins to come to England in mass. This is the problem, not the mother, father, or judge. If England has laws supporting freedom of religion, then if the mother didn’t like it, then she could move or be deported back to Pakistan. Appeasement by the judge is just one in a long line of such, Sharai courts being another, that English liberals have enacted over the last half century.
LikeLike
oharaann said:
Sometimes you just have to stand up and witness to God and His Word http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/the-spiritual-legacy-of-mother-angelica/5122/
LikeLike