In what used to be called Christendom, as well as in lands settled by those originating there, we are in a post-Christian era. The relationship between the State and the Churches has taken many forms across the ages, and no one model has worked for everyone, so it would seem unlikely that any one model will replace it. Looking globally, we see a variety of practice, from countries like China which insist on regulating Churches very tightly (to no good effect, it seems the gerontocracy refuses to learn from history that the best way to encourage Christianity is to attempt to control and suppress it), to the USA, where there is no established Church and a formal separation of Church and State, through varieties of Establishment in places such as England (and I specify England because neither Scotland nor Wales have an Establishment).
The post-Christian element is important because it means that most of our governing elites have some ideas about Christianity, mostly formed, as some of them are happy to admit, by listening to the loudest voices in the public square – which is why some of them are so hostile to Christianity. Whether we like it or not, Christianity is, for them, just one of a number of faiths which have to be listened to – or not – and our demands in terms of laws have to compete with other ‘human rights’. It is precisely because it is so easy to mistake a liberal elite consensus for the norm that it is done, and so our Governments proceed on the assumption that what they and those whom they know want, is what everyone wants; when that is challenged, the assumption is that those doing the challenging are wrong. We sometimes get a vivid insight into how members of the elite feel on such occasions, the most notable recent one was President Obama talking about people clinging to their Bibles and their guns. This is not the sign of a failure of empathy, it is a sign of the contempt in which some members of the liberal elite hold those who disagree with them. We see a version of this in social media, where so many expressions of liberal hostility to conservatism are cast in personal form. It is not enough to say, for example, that the former Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan-Smith is pursuing policies which are misguided and which have bad effects – rather, it was de rigeur to insist his motives are evil and that he hates the poor. Similarly, the notion that in defending the rights of the unborn, Christians are doing just that, is set aside by charges that they are in some sense ‘anti-women’ (when more females babies are aborted than male?) and oppressive.
As one might expect, the battle lines are fiercest in ares where the liberal consensus has moved furthest away from Christian conceptions of morality – abortion, sexual activity outside marriage, homosexuality. On one side are Christians outraged at such a departure, on the other, those who have nothing to do with Christianity and the Churches and cannot for the life of them see why the State should pay any attention to the Churches. Both sides tend to take up entrenched positions, and to the majority who don’t, the Christian position often seems incomprehensible. To a population which knows little about Christianity, the cry ‘if whatever they are doing is legal and concerns only themselves, what’s the problem?’ As we saw in Ireland, a Church mired in a history of clerical child abuse, and which was widely held to have been oppressive when it had the upper hand, failed to make much headway against the campaign to allow gay marriage.
The biggest danger to the Churches lies in the repetition of this phenomenon across a wide range of issues. Many Christian Churches have not yet grown accustomed to being one of many voices, or seen the danger coming from the more aggressive secularists who, mistaking their own position for the norm, want to ban all voices which conflict with their views. At the very least, we have to insist on the right to a plurality of voices in the public square – but that means recognising the rights of others to speak there too. It also means working within education and politics to ensure a degree of literacy abut faith – a task in which we will find ourselves welcomed by those of other faiths. If we have not even catechised our own flocks, and if as a consequence many of them have little idea of even the rudiments of Catholic teaching, then we have a mountain to climb in getting there with governing elites who often look on us with hostility and incomprehension.
It is easy enough to turn from the task and glory in the world being hostile – Christ said it would be – and in the end it always will be. But that does not absolve us from the task of bearing witness in a way that makes people interested in what such people believe, rather than recoiling from our biliousness.
NEO said:
Seems to me that many of our friends, mostly, but not exclusively, on the leftist/modernist side, not to mention many in our bubbles have a bit of trouble remembering what Beatrice Evelyn Hall wrote in 1906:
‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’
Which she wrote about Voltaire and is often misattributed to him.
Or perhaps they simply disagree (sometimes violently) with such a revolutionary idea?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Michigan Man said:
Undoubtedly the problem was the change in Church teaching in VC2 about religious liberty
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If the Catholic Church is not prepared to allow religious liberty, it is in a poor position to argue for its own liberty if States prohibit it, surely? Since there are, outside the Vatican City, no Catholic States, it would be the ultimate in self-defeating action to ban religious liberty – the Church would be the main loser.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave Smith said:
But there is a problem. Dignitatis Humanae rightly states that people in the state should not be coerced into any religion but fails to give to the state or the people therein to revoke this ‘religious privilege’ so to speak from those who clearly want to do something unspeakable; human sacrifice, cannibalism, child abuse or a non-reciprocal belief in domination by their belief. As far as I can see this is not a God-given right being expounded but a privilege as I say. Christianity has dug its own grave for those who misuse the privilege given them. Those for whom the states wants to protect and for the Church who wants to extend such a privilege seems to have put us into a corner where there is no other outcome possible other than warring with factions who will coerce us and/or take over our cultures for their own domination. We gave them the tools to subjegate us and now we are reaping the upheaval that such un-governed ‘rights’ produce.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
In democratic societies, I doubt any government is going to go for the unspeakable things you mention.
In democratic societies the Church cannot ‘give’ anything, and that’s a significant point. We have to work out how to work with pluralism – whilst that still exists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
That is true and a dialogue is brewing that is long overdue or we are in for a showdown as they used to say in the Old West.
I’m not sure what these elitiest governor types will or will not go for. For instance you hear little about our objection to female genital mutilation or that women cannot be dominated just because it is expected in a particular religion. All I know is that the problems in this world are being magnified by our own laws to the point that we are losing all our other freedoms due to this particular freedom.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
That is precisely one of the reasons we need to defend what once would have been thought a truism, namely a plurality of views. We are within measurable distance of that going in the name of ‘human rights’ – which is a polemical abuse of a good cause by those who, if they spoke what they really believe, would be exposed for the zealots they are.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Indeed a plurality of views is one thing; for that implies a dialogue and evaluation. A plurality of actions dictated by a religion need not be accepted due to, as you say, state imposition of laws protecting common human rights. We seem at this momement to embrace the views and yet pretend that the actions are non-existent. Our eyes need be opened to both.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
I would quite agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
. . . I might also add that all views are not equal; but alas, revealing their relative worth requires formal education which is now in shambles.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
One reason why we hear so much about ‘safe spaces’ is that too many young people have been so failed by the system that they can neither bear to hear views contrary to their own, nor think of counter arguments to them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
. . . and why they ran to those safespaces when someone mistook a monk with cincture on campus as a KKK member with a sword. We now see the bogey man in the most innocent of people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Such are the benefits of a modern education – it seems 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Very beneficial. I doubt they could find their way to a safe space without the use of GPS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
At least they could programme those 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
If they don’t walk into a light pole whilst texting. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
🙂 In which case they’d find a lawyer who would sue someone for them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I doubt they can spell lawyer but they probably have an app that will get them one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Lawyers, like fleas, find their way into places human life cannot go 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Asbestos suits. 🙂
LikeLike
Michigan Man said:
Religious liberty has always been understood to mean you are free to cooperate with the grace of God. That is you are free to be Christian. VC2 butchered that and it’s led to many falsities
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
In the nineteenth century it came to mean the right of the State to allow many forms of religion instead of privileging one form. After all, the State has nothing to say about our being free to cooperate with God – we’re always free to do that surely?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michigan Man said:
So if you watch that video, the answer is explained very plainly. If you profess modernism, then you’re free to make the claim you do without conflicting statements but I assumed you were not a modernist and followed the faith.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
In what way do you think Vatican II denied man the chance to choose to cooperate with God?
LikeLike
Michigan Man said:
That’s not what the video says…?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It seemed to be what you are saying. Not sure why you imagine SSPX represents Magisterial teaching. The man offers crude stereotypes about ‘modernism’ – sets up straw men and knocks them down. Not impressed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michigan Man said:
The SSPX presents the truth of the Catholic faith. If you disagree with it, read Archbishop Lefebvre’s book An Open Letter to Confused Catholics. It’s not a solution to your dilemma to defend modernism by abasing some of the most holy priests I’ve ever had the pleasure to meet. If you think the SSPX has changed Church teaching, you’ve missed the entire situation of the last 40 years or so entirely
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Last time I looked, it was the Magisterium which did that, not a group founded by an excommunicated former bishop. Did that change sometime and the rest of us fail to get the memo?
I have no dilemma. We live in a society where everyone is free to choose their religion – and we are going to go on doing that. If that offends you, perhaps stay away from the real world and stay in and SSPX solipsism?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I am unclear what this ‘society’ is which is going to do what the man in the video wants? Taken logically, ‘society’ would be perfectly justified in shutting him and the Church up. I do wonder sometimes what world some people actually live in? That in their head is not the real world the rest of us inhabit.
LikeLike
Michigan Man said:
It’s clear you accept modernism. No need to continue this conversation. Thanks for the discussion
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It’s clear you can’t actually think outside stereotypes, which is a bore. so farewell. I prefer talking with people who can think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michigan Man said:
I prefer Catholics.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I prefer those who do not take their cue from excommunicates – because I take the Church seriously, as opposed to preferring my own opinions to what it teaches – each to their own. You do know what excommunication means for the immortal soul don’t you? Your choice, and excommunicate or the successor of St Peter. Choose carefully – everything depends on it.
LikeLike
Michigan Man said:
Do you know what excommunication means? Is it infallible? Are we to accept things the Pope does which are against the Catholic faith? When a Pope says we should “baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ”, and priests refused, should they have been excommunicated for not following the Pope’s orders? Should we refuse from criticizing the Pope as he confuses the faithful with his words? Tell that to St Catherine of Siena. Can people who die in excommunication be saints? Go tell that to St Joan of Arc. Did the Society of St Pius X break any doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic faith? Go read the history books. VC2 was pastoral and not dogmatic. Nothing new was defined. Pope Benedict affirmed that the Traditions of the Church were never outlawed (as if they could be), and reneged the excommunication of the Bishops. The Archbishop’s actions were done out of necessity and not out of self interest. Time was show, I have tremendous faith, that His Excellency is among the Saints in Heaven. Even Pope Francis admits the Society is within the Church and not schismatic. They are some of the most faithful priests to Holy Mother Church, and more importantly to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
St Joan of Arc, pray for us. St Pius X, defend us against Modernism. St Michael the Archangel, defend us from the snares and tricks of the Devil.
Go take your modernism where it’s encouraged and where it means something other than the mother of all heresies. I’m done with this worthless and ignorant conversation.
XP
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Last time I looked, we were not Protestants. That means we don’t get to tell our Fathers in Christ what is and is not ‘Catholic’. The Pope was acting, as he does, with the approval of the whole of the Magisterium. For my part, I accept what the Church says, if you don’t, so be it. Have a good time explaining to St Peter why you are right – hope he agrees with you.
LikeLike
Michigan Man said:
We Catholics have the whole of 2000 years of Tradition on our side. You have a heresy condemned in 1907 by a Saint.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
You argue like a Protestant, and I assume you were one once. I am obedient to those set above me by God – you pick and choose. God picks and chooses – so you take care now, and you’d better hope you are right – you’re in hell a long time.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
I’ve spent the better part of the week defending the traditions of the Church against true modernists. If you think Chalcedon is not a Catholic you’re sadly mistaken. Try those like I’ve had to speak to this week pumping essays written by Elizabeth Johnson and Margaret Ralph.
Now, sadly, I’m reading comments from you Michigan Man that border on a disconnect from the Church. It borders on sedevacantism even if you fail to admit it. I would suggest the traditional Catholics here to correct you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Michigan Man said:
It is 100% not sedevecantism. I’m sick of that being the response to any criticism of the Pope or Bishops. I think we’ve had this discussion before. Just because someone points out an issue in the Church does not make him a sedevacantist. Many saints in the church’s history have issued cautions. I’m not Saint clearly but I would like to be, and it is my firm belief that the Church’s role is the salvation of souls through the infallible teaching of the Church, which are unwavering and constant throughout time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Why do you adhere to a excommunicate of the faith as a valid voice in the Church, over voices like St John Paul II?
For example, on your blog, you attacked his apostolic lettered addition to the rosary, but accept the wisdom of an excommunicate?
It doesn’t appear to me you’re in communion with Rome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michigan Man said:
John Paul II erred quite a bit too, my friend. I believe the Archbishop is a Saint, or will be someday. We as the Church owe a whole hellava lot to him for protecting our traditions. Pope Benedict realized this long ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Well, you can certainly speculate, but John Paul the II is a Saint, so you better remember it and address him as such Pope St. John Paul II.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michigan Man said:
Unfortunately I think Blessed Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors might be a difficult read, especially #77. Also #78-80.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
And just because someone fails to be impressed by a poor SSPX video does not make them a modernist. I find it odd that those who indulge in name calling object when others do it to them; or perhaps I don’t.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Chalcedon is Catholic, you have no authority to say otherwise.
LikeLike
Michigan Man said:
Look, you’re right about that. I was wrong about that, but my intention isn’t really to deny him being Catholic, but to affirm that what he is suggesting is a break from the teachings of the Catholic Church some 50 years ago. Is it his fault that he was wrongly taught that? Probably not. But my intention is more to point out the change, and less to condemn him specifically. So I apologize for that aspect of it
LikeLiked by 2 people
Philip Augustine said:
The Church in a council is guided by the Holy Spirited enacted Religious Liberty within the Church. Are we to assume that 4000 Bishops gathered only for the Holy Spirit to stay home?
There are REAL modernist in the Church. Dave here will tell you how I’ve been opened up the real danger in the Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
In what period of Church history have lay people taken it upon themselves to tell the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops that they are less fit than the laity to successfully identity the Catholic faith? They did it at the time of the Reformation and we call those laymen Protestants.
Do we form our views from the Internet, reading selectively according to our own conformation bias, or do we do that through catechesis in the parish and diocese and by being part of the life of our church and listening to those set in authority above us?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Brother Chalcedon, step forward…(drum roll)
It is found that you are a modernist and therefor a protestant. I hereby ex post facto incommunicado uncommunicate you from the catholic church. May you fare well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I think you’ll find that only the Vatican can do that.
Interesting that you seem attracted to the men who support what your blog condemns.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
That’s odd… I don’t consider my inconsiderate blog as having any central theme, or condemning one particular ideology. Maybe there is a theme others can see that I don’t see.
Cherrybombcoutour.blogspot.com
I just put up pictures of catholics in their natural habitat and then say funny things about them. You can call me a “tour Guide” of sorts.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
So, you have repented of your ant-Catholicism then?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
I don’t consider myself anti catholic, because there is no catholic church. That’s like accusing me of being anti Mickey Mouse Club. Or, uh, …anti Superman. There is no0 Superman. Its just in the minds of people.Religions exist only in the minds of men. Yes, they have grand palacial headquarters, but they are just stone and brick and cement….they aren’t anything but a building.
My message is, turn from some phantasm and seek the living Christ.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I don’t know what you are smoking, but if 1.2 billion Catholics and their church have disappeared, I’d get off it.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Come on good brother, you know what im talking about.
The world of the abstract. Philosophies are abstract. They only live in the fertile minds of men.
Oh look at those cathols over there, how nice.
No….look at those people over there. They subscribe to something called Catholicism. In their minds they call them selfs catholic.
Its like paper money. Its worth something only if you think its worth something. otherwise its non existent.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Tell you what, Bosco, give all your paper money away now – you might find it is more real than you suppose.
LikeLike
NEO said:
And in the eighteenth century, especially when written down, it meant the state was not to interfere with your religion whatever it was, or wasn’t. There was no prohibition on religious people in the state, merely on the interference (for good or ill) of the state.
It’s important to realize the difference between the ‘two kingdoms’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Michigan Man said:
LikeLike
No Man's Land said:
Lol. Religious liberty is as old as the Church. You have Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Lactantius, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, etc defending religious liberty. Indeed, they even went so far as to suggest that it is a natural right.
Justin Martyr, Apology 10.
Tertullian, Apology 24, Apology 28, To Scapula 2.
Lactantius, Divine Institutes 5.13, Epitome of the Divine Institutes, 54.
Cyprian, To Demetrian, 13.
Origen, Against Celsus, 7.26, Sermons in Psalms, 4.1.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michigan Man said:
The Catholic Church has always taught that you will not be forced to believe the Catholic faith (see immortale dei) but that it is an error. The state can tolerate belief in another religious tradition, but it is in no way a right for someone to believe wrongly. Man has a duty to believe the Truth and to honor God’s wishes. As John Salza writes:
“As Pope Leo XIII teaches in Annum sacrum, “the empire of Christ the King includes not only Catholic nations…but all those who are outside the Christian faith.” The State is a creature that is subject to Jesus Christ, who has a double claim upon every individual as both Creator and Redeemer.
Therefore, the State has an obligation to render to Christ the worship that He has revealed to us through the Catholic religion. This truth is reflected in Pope Pius IX’s condemnation of the following in the Syllabus, No. 77: “In the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” States have no right to remain neutral regarding religion or to promote secular policies regarding religion. As Paul says in Romans 13:1, “There is no power but from God.” Because all governments derive their power from God, no government has a right to enact a law that is contrary to the laws of God.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Man's Land said:
Religious liberty is not a secular policy. It is a Christian principle, as much of the patristic and medieval literature demonstrates. It was developed by patristic thinkers and translated into the language of rights by medieval thinkers.
Wait, so, you’re saying that the Church cannot force people to be Catholic but the State can? I think I’ve heard this argument before….Thomas More, perhaps, on killing heretics? It’s all disingenuous garbage–trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Lactantius said it best: “There is no need of force and injury, because religion cannot be forced. It is a matter that must be managed by words rather than by blows, so that it may be
voluntary…Poles apart are
execution and piety, and truth cannot be joined with force, nor justice
with cruelty.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michigan Man said:
That’s not at all what I said
LikeLiked by 1 person
No Man's Land said:
Perhaps, not explicitly, but it is certainly what logically follows from what you said. If you don’t like the implication, then you need to check your premises.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
You said the State had the obligation to worship Christ. You live in a State that does not recognise any such obligation. I trust you will be leaving for some State which does this? Or is this more impracticable theory?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It is unclear what you are trying to say here. Two simple facts: Catholic monarchs have forced people to convert (Ferdinand and Isabella with the Jews and Moriscos for example) and not been condemned for it by Rome; States have every right not to endorse any religion – your own one, unlike my own, takes just that line.
So, perhaps like QV you are enunciating theoretical positions with no anchorage in reality?
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
On a side note, isn’t Malta technically a Catholic state?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Not any more, that stopped under Dom Mintoff I think.
It seems unwise of those in glass houses to advocate stone throwing- any banning of belief systems seems likely to be aimed at us, not by us. But perhaps this news has failed to penetrate solipsistic mentalities?
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Too bad, I always envisioned stepping off on its shores someday and have the feeling of stepping into the past.
I suppose I can go the Gareth route and go to the monastery, although I was hoping to go somewhere where I could bring the wife. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
The past? Come to Norfolk- we are still there 😄
That wonderful feeling, SSPX to the right of us, ACTA to the left of us – I try to avoid the alphabet soup 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
The strange thing to me is that Dignitatis Humanae always sounded to me like a letter to the governments of the world to be read to the general assembly of the United Nations. It does not have the ususal uniqueness of Catholic teaching for Catholics.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
My sermon for today is taken from the book of Daniel.
As far as I can see, in a hostile environment (captivity in a foreign land that was profoundly anti-Christian) Daniel simply got on with it, quietly witnessing, doing the ordinary every day things you expect of Christians – for example, getting thrown to the lions when he was seen worshipping God – and was raised to third highest ruler in the land. Chapter 4 would indicate (at least to me) that Nebuchadnezzar was saved – and Daniel’s witness played a large part in the process.
On the whole, perhaps I prefer witnessing for Christ in a pagan world – after all, the sort of Catholic nationalism that Kaczynski would like to introduce in Poland doesn’t seem too far from the dictionary definition of fascism; the secular state seems more appealing, even for the Christian.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chalcedon451 said:
Good points Jock. And in a post-Christian society, bearing witness to the good and the hope that is in us is the most effective evangelization.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Slim Pickens said:
We followed your suggestion. I tried Fats Waller but then decided that I didn’t want the nickname ‘Fats’ so I went with Slim Pickens. I don’t know why, but it didn’t change my name in the left hand column of authors. Maybe C can fix it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
I’ll see what can be done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Slim Pickens said:
Thanks C. I always did like the old actor. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It ought to sync automatically- but it can take a few minutes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Slim Pickens said:
OK. Thanks for your help.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
OK – I warn you that ‘slim’ is often the nickname for the fat guy in 1940’s gangster movies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Slim Pickens said:
That’s very true . . . but then old Slim Pickens of movie fame was tall and lanky (at least in his younger years). I tend more to the Waller side of the spectrum these days but you can always reminisce.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gareth Thomas said:
Oh dear . .. A sensible and pertinent post. Prolly should have stopped reading at the end of your piece, John. But oh no… fool that I am, I continued by reading the comments. Amusing to see we now have a rood and norty SSPX troll, perhaps. (His poor manners and headbanging writing style indicate perhaps a new SSPX convert, or maybe a person with too much time on their hands who has decided to create a parody SSPX persona?)
I have just finished a school parents’ evening. To be honest, I always dread parents’ evenings. Why? Because I am a good teacher and I really do care. What happens at parents’ evenings is that I’ll usually see about twenty parents who turn up to show interest in their children, ask how they can improve their performance, and seek intelligent advice from their child’s teacher. Then you get the inevitable bad-mannered, loud, thin-faced mother dragging their sulky child up to your desk to demand why their little genius has only got a C+ for their Spring Term report, not the A* that they richly deserve. And you have a twenty minute argument about it, while a queue of parents patiently wait for their five-minute slot.
There’s always one.
Because I am a good teacher, I will spend the rest of the evening worrying about it. The sensible thing to do would be to shake the dust from my sandals and forget the whole conversation. A shame this person claims to speak for SSPX. I have been planning for some time to go to Madrid, my nearest SSPX Mass centre, just to see what their group is all about and experience Latin Mass. I don’t think I am quite so motivated now. Well done, Michigan Man. Do you go to parents evenings too?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Slim Pickens said:
Well as C says in the post differing views and religious freedom are fine as they have the possibility of being changed or countered by patient dialogue and education. At least beheadings aren’t part of this view . . . as far as I know.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
If you’re looking for a Latin Mass, you don’t need to bother with SSPX and you don’t need to bother with any wacky theology either. I remember a Scottish Episcopal church in Edinburgh where they did Latin mass. They didn’t believe in God; they just liked a good sing-song in the old language, fancy dress and a bit of incense. At choir practise, they would warm up by singing the John Cleese number, ‘I’ve got a ferret sleeping up my nose’.
Unfortunately, Edinburgh tends to be cold, dark, damp and windy – unlike Madrid – but you might like it anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gareth Thomas said:
I have as much need for Edinburgh as my donkeys might crave for marmalade on their straw. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jock McSporran said:
… do your donkeys like marmalade on their straw? Have you tried this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Odd the way that when it isn’t it does not stop self-proclaimed traditionalist quoting it as though it were. Two sets of rules perhaps?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Oh come on Q, Luther knew he was ‘right’ too!
At least you have something in common.
I knew you’d find your ecumenical spirit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
A very Protestant attitude.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
There is no ‘nightmare’ – except in the minds of those so proud that they have taken it upon themselves to tell the rest of the Church that it is wrong and they are right. That’s easily cleared up – except in the heads of those who ‘know’ they are ‘right’.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I see now unclarity on religious liberty. We are all, in democratic societies free to make choices – some will always make the wring choice. No one can be forced to believe. What’s your problem with that?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Who defines rights? Since there is quite clearly the right to liberty of conscience, you are welcome not to believe in it. Try to act on that belief and best of luck to you with your lawyer.
I am talking about the world we live in, not some imaginary construct.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You seemed to be saying there was no liberty to believe in error. I was observing that observation tells us there is – it is a fact – a sad one.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Best of luck in your quest to get the State to ban those things. Or were you arguing theoretically?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
My cast of mind is one which sees no need to bother with the impossible. It is the consequence of having to deal with hard facts – and academics who will do everything except face and deal with them.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed, and a willingness to know where the practical line can be drawn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
You can prefer your own definition of difficult texts, which is the Protestant way, or you can prefer that of the Church, which is the Catholic way.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You put you own construction on a Papal document – Protestant proof-texting is a hard habit to break.
You may be more qualified than bishops, Cardinals and Rome to define the true faith – I am not.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You seem to forget that our understanding of doctrine develops and we have a Magisterium which can define authentic from false developments. What is taught about religious liberty has obviously developed. If you would like to advocate forcible conversion because Ferdinand and Isabella did it, feel free. For my part, I prefer not to nail my beliefs on such things to those of an era where it was thought acceptable to burn people alive for their beliefs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Catholic hegemonies have not endured, and where, as in Ireland and Spain they long endured they have left behind a bad taste and much hatred of the way clergy behaved.
States are not per se obliged to give us house room. They do so where they do as part of a commitment to pluralism. Let’s not spit on our luck. When we had the whip hand it was not so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
As so often, I am unclear what theoretical point you are trying to make. In theory, communism works, so I try to avoid theoretical positions.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
In theory medieval Catholicism worked.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Interesting to speculate why.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
I thought what sustained it was Catholic monarchs ?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gareth Thomas said:
Prompted by Philip Augustine’s comment, I suggest most of this comment thread is a load of monarchs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
By the way of ‘The Church’, the Catholic way, I take it that you mean continual bickering?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Anyone who thinks that they have a view if theInfinite which can’t be improved by discussion,hasn’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bosco the Great said:
That’s rite good brother Jock. People involved in false religion, no two of them agree on the same thing. Its a “free for all”.
In Christ, the Spirit guides us to all truths. Minor differences can pop up, like pre or post trib. But that’s because the bible isn’t super duper clear on that. No big deal, as if philosophizing on that will change when the rapture happens.
LikeLike
Gareth Thomas said:
Eat your hearts out, SSPX traditionalists. Proper extreme Catholicism in Spain will always be one step ahead! La Legion in Malaga two weeks ago:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Gareth – I thought that the whole SSPX discussion was utterly irrelevant to the topic that Chalcedon raised, but nevertheless I thought he took on the SSPX head bangers admirably. He had two options: either remove the irrelevant discussion, or else take them on.
Thanks for drawing attention to this video. I watched 5 minutes of it. I found it grotesque and repulsive; it looks like a form of paganism and has nothing to do with anything that I recognise as Christianity.
It seems to me that the Church versus State misses the point. I live in a Catholic country, where people do attend church, but for many issues, they simply don’t bother with what the church is saying to them. If The Church could convince its own adherents and members of its own teaching, then the legislature would be quite different.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gareth Thomas said:
If you watched only five minutes of it, that is probably not enough to get into the spirit of the occasion. Try again. If goose-stepping Foreign Legion troops carrying the Crucified to martial music doesn’t quite appeal, I suggest you are a modernist. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people