Tags
This place is, as far as I know, unique in that it does not confine its exploration of Christianity to one church, or one part of one church. It is remarkable that it has survived for four years, but latterly some of the internecine strife which has been such a marked feature of the Catholic blogosphere since Pope Francis became Pope has seeped in. It is inevitable. For a long time, indeed since before the Second vatican Council (and long before) there have been strains within the Catholic Church between what in other contexts would be called modernisers and conservatives. Both sides have used language about the other which resembles that used by the early Church Fathers when confronting those they held to be heretics – given what both sides think is at stake, that’s inevitable. It looks ugly, but no one familiar with these sorts of arguments can be surprised by it. Holding together a Church which has in it German theologians like Cardinal Kasper and some of the more traditionalist African bishops is not, as the Anglicans discovered long ago, an easy task. Until the election of Francis, conservative and traditional elements could, if not rest easy, at least think that the worst effects of Vatican II had been moderated, and that some of the issues the liberals agitated so strongly for were settled – no women priests, no communion for the divorced for example. Francis, an old man in a hurry if ever there was one, has unsettled such a consensus. He has emboldened the ageing sixties radicals, and has tended to dismay the conservatives. If anything is clear about the man, it is that this is deliberate – he’s a Hegelian, he believes that out of thesis and antithesis there will emerge a synthesis. I wish him luck but think he’ll need it because the Truth is not to be found in some triangulation exercise, but in Christ Jesus.
These things are a matter for the Roman Catholic Church, and I bring them up only because they have begun to intrude here. My own views are conservative on matters of doctrine and social policy; they were when I was a young man, they are now. But they have changed. When I was young I firmly believed what I had been taught and what I had read, which was that the Roman Church was the great whore of Babylon and the Pope the anti-Christ. It was not that I had come to this conclusion by myself, it was the product of the environment in which I was raised, and in my grandfather’s house in Belfast there were a great many books and tracts which ‘proved’ these things with ‘irrefutable proofs’; nor were such ideas novel, they went back hundreds of years; they were part of the tradition in which I was reared. They were returned, and with interest, by the few Roman Catholics with whom I came into contact. I was assured by them that their church was the only road to salvation and that like all “proddies”, I would be frying in hell once I had died. Then, in my mid twenties, what had been a growling background noise became something more serious. I remember being in Belfast fro Christmas 1968 and finding myself in place which seemed to be falling into some kind of civil war. The Catholics, who had long been discriminated against, found leaders who convinced them that violence was the answer to their problems – and if most Catholics were not part of that violence, they did not oppose it. Those, like my own family, who had relatives who had fled north from the narrow theocracy of de Valera’s Ireland, were determined to meet fire with fire. And so it was that two sets of people who confessed Christ was king, bombed each other, shot each other, gave refuge to the bombers and the shooters. There were many other reasons for the “Troubles”, but those who now argue religion was only an excuse were not there – it was the underlying narrative – both sides felt that if the other triumphed, their tradition would be extinguished. After my grandparents died in the early 1970s, I stopped going back very often; it was too painful.
In the meantime I had the great good fortune to end up teaching in a place where another new, young colleague, was a sort of Catholic I had never met before. He understood much about my own tradition and though a Catholic, had read Luther and Calvin, and had a fondness for Spurgeon’s sermons, and could quote parts of The Pilgrim’s Progress by heart (he was an English teacher after all, and that was a time when we knew huge amounts of poetry by heart, but he knew much prose too). In talking to me about these things, there was in him nothing but the desire of a Christian to explore the fullness of how people had come to know the Lord. Such an attitude led me to seek to find out more about his church. The witness he gave simply gave the lie to so much I had been brought up to believe. He talked with knowledge and humility about his Church, not defending the indefensible. He was the first person I ever knew who mentioned child abuse. He had something of the prophet about him even then, and said that the day would come when this would damage his beloved Church; it was, he said the joint product of satan attacking his church, and of men who worshipped their church rather than the Lord, thinking that somehow it was better to cover these things up for the good of the church, than to expose and deal with them as a good Christian ought. He drew parallels with what I was experiencing when I went back to Belfast. Men, he used to say, sadly, invested too much in institutions and too little in Him whom they worshipped. That truth came to me in many ways across a long career in school mastering.
We can all become over-invested in our own vision of our own church, and to the extent that we can say bitter things about those in our church who think otherwise. We can, as they used (and still do in some parts of) in Belfast, to embrace a history we did not create and come to embody its evils even as we celebrate its glories; nothing man touches is free from pitch, and we forget that at our spiritual peril.
And here, you may be glad to know, endeth the sermon. To those who have no idea why I am giving it, I envy you. To those who do, I ask only one thing, that you ponder it and see if there is anything in it – it behoves old men to dream dreams, after all.
May the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Amen
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. Only, of course, after being called many other things first, perhaps, Geoffrey, but many thanks for a timely sermon.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Thank you, Geoffrey. I, for my part, can only say ‘mean culpa, mea culpa, mea maxime culpa’. My apologies to dave S, Francis Phillips and Steve, and to others. Whatever my reasons, they are not an adequate excuse. I hope my unreserved apology will be accepted. Either way, it is offered – and meant.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Well, lass, that’s reet handsome as we say in these parts, and no one could ask for more. We can all get het up when we feel in the face of disrespect – and all sides can feel they are facing that. Best do as you’ve done less – well done!
LikeLiked by 5 people
You’re a marvellous father figure Geoffrey – and you somehow know how to get your message across – even to stroppy red headed young women 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thou’rt welcome lass. As for the read heads, well my youngest is a red head, and so was her mother when young – so I’ve a bit of experience with the species 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
We can be a handful 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 4 people
An excellent sermon indeed, Geoffrey. And yes, this is a matter, all of these, for the Catholic Church to sort, but the Catholic church is important to many besides its own, and many care.
Tempers flare, including mine, that’s why the kichen get hot. The problem is when attacks become personal, and directed, then we generate only heat, and no light.
I too was a conservative kid, and remain one, but not exactly the same. Somebody once said that the key to being a conservative is knowing what to conserve, what may need an adjustment, and that which was foolish of our fathers. That’s the hard part, especially since we usually insist on us each doing it, instead of some authority.
And this old man, I suspect, joins in your dream, because some thing are worth conserving.
LikeLiked by 3 people
But not the ‘s’s on the end of verbs, apparently! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Neo. I’m glad it seems to be helping.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As am I, and you’re quite welcome.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey .- does this ‘love-in’ extend to David Monier Williams, by any chance? I think the approach taken was pretty much correct – but he did get booted off, quite comprehensively.
LikeLike
Tha’s revisionist history at its best Jock. My memory is he said he’d give a full answer to the very serious criticisms made of him. I’m still waiting. He took himself off because he was exposed and actually had no answer.
LikeLike
Oh – I agree one hundred percent with DMW.
But the way we (mostly you) had a go at him is hardly the sort of discussion style that will induce a constructive reasoned answer. I was (for example) present at one seminar where after points were made in a manner that wasn’t how you would expect them to be made, the speaker put the chalk down and said, ‘I refuse to give a seminar in front of a hostile audience’. In that setting, I thought that the speaker did the right thing – and I was surprised that the chairman hadn’t done more to keep good order.
If the approach you (we) took on DMW had been taken on me, I would have ‘left the building’ and decided that this wasn’t the sort of audience whom I would grace with a reasoned answer.
While it’s clear what you (and I) have against him, I can’t for the life of me see why the Catholics here joined in.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s hard to be a judge in your own case. I made what I thought a reasoned, if strongly-worded case, and the last because from what I could see, he was making claims which amounted to cult-like behaviour. He had a chance to respond, promised he would, and never did.
To be fair, if you were involved in a DMW type scam, I’d offer you the same chance to respond.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What do you mean “We”? I had no part in besmirching good brother David, and it showd your true colors to treat an old comrade like that. He was the best man on the side of the papists. You fair weather friends treated him like an animal. Im ashamed of all of you.
LikeLike
By ‘we’ I only meant to include myself. He may have been a Catholic, but he certainly wasn’t a Christian.
LikeLike
sO WHAt ? Hes not Christian but his catholic comrads turned on him like wild dogs. Ive never seen anything like it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes – I think I agree. I thought this blog was supposed to accommodate all sorts , but the attack against DMW was utterly vicious and he did get ‘booted off’. I don’t think that anybody seriously expected him to engage further after such a drubbing.
It doesn’t bother me.
Certainly – they didn’t seriously want him to stick around and give a response after such an exchange.
LikeLike
As I said Friday, a case was put up against him. I still await from you or anyone else a reasoned rebuttal of it. Wandering round crying like a young student that it was ‘vicious’ is emoting, not reasoning. As it was me, and not a Catholic who led the charge, I can answer only for myself, and my conscience is clear; he is involved in dangerous cult-like behaviour, and having seen what it can do, I called him on it, as I would again, and would to anyone engaged in such dangerous nonsense.
LikeLike
Geoffrey – my dear chap – I was one of those who joined in – and I think it was absolutely the correct thing to do. I didn’t think much of DMW before and I thought less of him when he started peddling that garbage.
Of course it was vicious – and he deserved it.
As I said – I wouldn’t bother responding to ‘questions’ that were put in a similar style, so I wouldn’t expect it of DMW (or anybody else).
I’m really surprised, though, that the Catholics joined in and agreed with the punishment beating – at least by remaining silent and simply watching the movie unfold.
I personally can’t see the difference between garbage such as Fatima (which I consider to be utterly Satanic) and the sort of nonsense that DMW was peddling. Somehow they seem to be able to tell the difference. The difference seems to be that some committee of high hedians in the Vatican thinks that Fatima is all right while some committee of high hedians in the Vatican has declared the stuff that DMW is into to be plain garbage.
I’m awaiting a Catholic commentator to explain to me why the stuff that DMW is into is any different from Fatima, which is Satanic garbage pure and simple.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve not heard anyone offer and answer either.
I think the fact that he hung out in that strange Casa place where the style of worship was not to the taste of the liturgically conservative here may have had something to do with the casting out. I recall when I looked at his site and looked out for the thing, there were some Catholic bishops endorsing it, but doubtless they were the wrong sort of Catholics?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good brother Jock has a point. Good brother Jeff, you drift in and out of consciousness. You, at times ,expose the fallacy of the witchcraft on Vaticanus Hill, then you turn around and say how lovely they are. I hope your condition isn’t what im led to believe it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is called being able to read and think Bosco – when you acquire these skills, let me know.
LikeLike
Geoffrey – well, you can insult Bosco all you like (and sometimes he truly deserves it) but here he has a point.
While you are on the one hand saying ‘we all basically share the same faith’, I have on the other hand seen from you expressions of contempt for some parts of Catholic doctrine or practise that go beyond what I would write.
You do exactly what Bosco states. Perhaps I don’t have the ability to read or think either – but there is something here that doesn’t add up.
Your friend John DC sounds as if he was an excellent fellow (anyone who enjoys Pilgrim’s Progress and Spurgeon’s sermons is probably a thoroughly decent Christian) . I also do understand that what you saw in Ulster was pretty horrible. I strongly understand that you don’t want to see that again and one way of doing this is to try and emphasise unity when it exists.
But what I’ve seen here does look like a ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ approach to the problem of Catholicism.
For my part, I’d like to think that it is basically OK, I go some way to convince myself that it is (by overlooking things), but then somebody thrusts an abomination such as Fatima in my face and then I have a serious problem with it and feel like giving up on any attempts at Christian unity.
LikeLike
We all have different mileages, Jock. I call the RCC where I think it errs, some of those areas might coincide with your view, some not. Bosco simply calls it out all the time – not a useful strategy – not least since it would appear that many of our RCC colleagues have decamped.
LikeLike
‘many of our RCC colleagues have decamped’
I don’t think you can blame Bosco for that. DMW’s departure was because of you; Servus Fidelis and Steve Brown (both RCC) have both indicated on these pages that they’re less inclined to contribute – and they have given the reason that they don’t like the direction in which Jessica has taken the blog. An RCC poster by the name of Cathy left in disgust at QVO (if I remember correctly, she didn’t like his use of the word ‘Sodomite as a descriptor for male homosexuals).
The RCCs like Bosco because he makes the anti-Catholic position look stupid and he isn’t responsible for their departure.
He may be related to the infrequency of Gareth Thomas, but while I have a certain respect for GT, I also see that there is little in the blogging world that he doesn’t like (and the last time GT posted here, it was Jessica’s support for women deacons within the C. of E. which he was criticising).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wasn’t. As I read it some of them were saying Jess was attacking the RCC aided by her Protestant friends – which is more or less piffle. I miss them, not least Dave Smith.
LikeLike
Geoffrey – by the way – you can’t be unaware of the basic shift that has taken place here.
We all believe in proclaiming Christ and him crucified. We believe in reaching out to people in their need and showing the Love of God to the best of our (miniscule) abilities. The idea is that the come to Christ in their need and are transported to a better place.
Jessica, over the last few weeks, has been proclaiming an entirely different gospel – all about accepting people exactly where they are (we’d all agree with that), but with no indication at all that the work of the Holy Spirit within them will transport them to a better place.
This is completely clear from what she says about the church she is involved in – where transgender people come there, because they know that they will be accepted exactly as they are and there won’t be even the gentlest push or pressure to transport them to a better place.
So while all the posts she has put up recently, where she states the ‘abstract theory’ without going into too many of the concrete details may sound good and holy and the sort of thing that all reasonable Christians would agree with, she is, fundamentally, presenting an entirely different gospel from the one that I believe in.
I’m now ready to leave this blog. I was attracted here a few years ago when you were writing a series on Pilgrim’s Progress. That was a very nice series, but I haven’t seen much like it recently.
There are always a few very nice things cropping up here – I enjoyed NEOs post a few days ago on Bach’s music within its liturgical context. Chalcedon wrote some good posts that were well worth reading and interacting with towards the beginning of the year.
But the theological and spiritual emphasis has changed completely recently and you must be blind if you can’t see it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What do I see? Jess said something, getting the usually sarky response from QVO, about assuming that Christians understood that of course her church was opening up people to the working of the Holy Spirit. That was what I assumed, and I’m interested that you didn’t assume the same.
Most of these folk will have been receiving ‘help’ for years. It may be, as Francis and Dave commented that the therapists are all signed up to one agenda, and it may be that what I’m not allowed to call the nut-job doctors are all signed up to it to, but be that as it may be, what I’m reading is that Jess and her church are encountering these disturbed people and trying to help the Spirit work in them. Seems a bit Christian to me. I didn’t make the assumption you’re making, which if I understood it was that Jess and co are colluding. They may be, but I lack the evidence to be quite as clear about it as you are. I’ll miss you if you go, but will wish you God speed and all blessings.
LikeLike
Geoffrey – I didn’t follow the discussions between Jess and QVO. I only ever read QVO for its entertainment value (in the same way that I read William McGonagall’s poetry) and I haven’t recently had the time for such amusement.
Neither did I read (at least not in detail) the exchange between Jessica / Servus Fidelis / Francis. This should say something important about me: I simply don’t have the time to get into as much detail as perhaps I should if I’m going to engage.
At some stage, I thought that either I should offer my services for writing posts or else quit completely. I appreciate that writing posts is a lot of work which I simply don’t have time for. On a secondary matter: I also don’t think there are many around here (except perhaps for you) who would be interested in what I write.
I’m all in favour of helping ‘disturbed’ people. I’m all in favour of Christian outreach. Here we have the problem that Jessica very often doesn’t seem (at least to me) to respond directly to what is written, but her replies often indicate that she is reading in rather a lot and making very heavy assumptions about where the plain words she sees before her are coming from. That, at least, is the kind interpretation. It’s a little confusing. I can guess at which church she is involved in (I think I know, but I’m not prepared to state it if she doesn’t want it stated here) and (a) I’ve never been involved there, (b) any information I have is from 30 years ago. (c) (and most importantly) the point here is not what her church is doing; it’s what Jessica perceives it to be doing and what Jessica sees as her role in that context.
The posts she puts up seldom have anything to say except for the obvious. They’re ‘nice words’ that all Christians can agree on, but vacuous without a context. In the comments below the line, she has given the distinct impression that there isn’t the old-style Salvation Army approach that the unconditional love of Christ is supposed to transport people to a better place – and that the function of the church is to assist with this. The Salvation Army took ‘disturbed’ (your word) people, got them off the bottle – and engaged them with ‘the church’ by sticking them in a uniform, giving them a brass instrument, and some rudimentary knowledge of simple tunes, which produced a beautiful effect.
As I pointed out to NEO, I’ve also begun to see signs (in fact, it’s written in huge letters all over everything she writes) that she is driven by a deep – seated anger, which comes out when she reads in that which is not there and attacks posters for not showing enough Christian love.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I tend not to bother with the general comments, preferring to make a comment and interact with responses (though WordPress seems odd sometimes, with comments not always coming up where I’d expect).
I’ve a reason for doing this, which is if you get caught up in responding too quickly, you do indeed respond to what you perceive is being said rather than what is being said, and that often means you’re really responding to something else, and that can skew the discussion; that’s what I see happening here.
In terms of ‘love’, it seems to me that’s been her theme from the beginning, and when folk start saying it isn’t what it means it’s something that looks just like its opposite, I can get to seeing why that might be a bit frustrating.
For my own part, I’ll comment where I can, and write as I can – and hope you may still be here doing both.
LikeLike
A false religion is a false religion. If people die in it, they loose salvation. Now,you good brother Jeff, can smile and wave as they sink down to hell, but I am hired as a watchman. You say you expose the corrupt parts of catholic doctrine and lift up the good parts.
Rat poison is 95% good food and 5% poison. One must not eat any of it. Eating any of it is surely death. Why cant you understand that? Its not a fun and game time in the sandbox. People go to hell for eternity behind eating this rat poison. Its just one way to die unsaved. No matter who one is…the kindly old lady who goes to church every sunday and feeds the pigeons will wind up in hell if she isn’t born again. Its not doing anybody any favors to tell them that they are OK while you watch them stuff their mouths with Rat Poison.
LikeLike
Part of the reason that I didn’t have much to say was to avoid the charge of collusion. I saw this coming last fall. It was a return to what the basis of this blog has always been, Christian, mostly non-denominational, over time Jess felt (as did I) it had turned into a mostly Catholic traditionalist mouthpiece, as well as very negative. She simply decided to reimplement her vision, knowing that some would likely leave. I doubt she really desired that but it is to be expected when one goes off mission, and we had. I suspect the other choice would have seen other people leave.
As you all know, Jess and I speak regularly of many things, and I am convinced her church preaches the same doctrine as any of ours, likely they do vary the emphasis to suit their congregation and neighborhood, as we all do. There never was a lot of point in carrying coal to Newcastle. But you can’t help people who will not talk to you, and so one must accept them in some measure, before you can even start. That’s why her church works, as very few in my neighborhood do, in fact, I can’t think of one.
Jock, I’d miss you too, but that’s a decision you’ll have to make for yourself. Either way, good luck to you, and God bless you and yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO – I’d tend to agree that a ‘traditional Catholic’ blog, heavily punctuated by Bosco as the ‘voice of reason’, has entertainment value, but other than that is less than optimal.
What you describe of the shift is (in the abstract theory) something that I would welcome rather than otherwise. I’m no Catholic. I’d say my affiliation is basically Faith Mission / Salvation Army, but my understanding was poshed-up considerably by listening to sermons by James Philip during 1986-88 (my final years studying at Edinburgh).
What I see now has unfortunate aspects: in discussions with Jessica, she sometimes seems to respond to assumptions she makes about a commentator (assumptions about the background and where the comment is coming from) rather than the comment itself. I don’t think this is the basis for a good discussion. She probably doesn’t realise she’s doing it, but she puts words into peoples mouths.
I’ve also noticed disturbing traits in her discussions on ‘love’ – there are undertones of some deep seated anger driving her – and this comes across (particularly when she is going on the attack against those whom she perceives as not showing sufficient Christian love).
These two points are additional factors, which may have obscured the truth (at least from me). I’m not writing here about the direction that her church is taking; I’m writing about her perception of it and how she sees her mission. I have always believed that while I was still at enmity with God and proud of my sin, yet Jesus loved me. The commands ‘love your enemies’ and trying in any small God-given way I can to show forth the Love commandment has always been central.
The posts Jessica has put up in recent weeks seldom have anything to say except for the obvious, things we can all agree on, but it’s when she deals with people below the line – I simply don’t see the old-style Salvation Army approach that the Love of Christ will transport people from where they are to a better place. That seems to be missing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lot here, and I don’t completely disagree with you. Yes, I think there was some anger driving those posts, but I think a lot of what looks like putting words in peoples mouths had more to do with what they had said, sometimes incessantly. In fact, I recently told her, privately that enough was enough, or maybe too much, tone it down. I understand how she got that way, cause I did too. I think we need to give her some time, and I think it’ll settle back to the good discussions we’ve always had. It got much too personal, on both sides.
You’re right, they are things we all agree on, but my word, the amount of heat generated arguing against them, and that was the problem.
There’s a limit to what I can say, Jess is my friend, and we don’t share our conversations, but I think you’ll like it here going forward. Course I’ve been wrong once or twice before! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s another way of looking at all of this. If our RC colleagues do not like the way this is going they have two choices – write posts which put forward their perspective – which is what we were all invited to do – or carry on a war in the comments section, write no posts and then withdraw. It’s a shame they are taking the last option, but it’s a free country.
As for anger, well there’s often a bit of that around, and if we can’t get over it, again, it’s time to move on. This old Yorkshireman is staying and contributing. I told Jess I’d give her a clear run for her series and try to make constructive comments. I haven’t agreed with all she’s said, but then I’ve been open to thinking about it. That’s not to say others haven’t, but it is to say my conclusion is not their conclusion.
Interestingly, the viewing figures seem to have gone up – food for thought there.
Anyhow, I miss those who have gone, respect their decision, and hope to hear from them in the great void of the Internet from time to time. GRRS
LikeLike
QVO – why does what DMW was doing class as witchcraft, while nonsense such as Fatima is considered in some sense OK? They both look like dangerous Satanic nonsense to me.
LikeLike
John XXIII was an old man in a hurry too. His first visit outside the Vatican was to prisoners in the city jail. No Pope had previously ventured outside the Vatican walls for decades. The Pope greeted the prisoners saying it was, “From one prisoner to another”
I was born during the reign of Pius XII. He was revered in our home as a good saintly man of frugal habits who prayed and suffered much humbly for the sins of the world. When he died, it was like losing a parent.
After John XXIII was elected in his place, my mother and myself went together to the cinema to see a newsreel about Pius XII’s life and death and the electing of John XXIII. We wept for Pius and all he had gone through and were elated to see his jolly replacement, John XXIII.
The new Pope was compared by some to the man he replaced and found wanting. He was of peasant stock they said, not aristocratic like the previous man. He was a plain speaker which offended others. Then his girth drew remarks about his fondness for good food.
I asked my mom why people were criticising the Pope so much and she said that the Pope was always criticised. Guess it goes with the territory.
In John XXIII’s time, he used be carried about in a chair raised up high so people could see him and he could give all his blessing. He found out how much the men who carried him were paid and doubled it because he said, he was twice the weight Pius XII.
Pax.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Geoffrey – I can’t seem to get this comment in the correct position.
Briefly, the viewing figures will go up if there are endless blog posts about abortion, homosexuality and Muslims. They won’t go up if there is a serious series based on ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’.
So I don’t see that as an indicator of anything important.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me neither – but my broader point was that the toxic nature of some of the comments box would have put me off if I was a visitor. I’ve just seen C’s comments about Romans – I’d encourage him to do something like that.
LikeLiked by 1 person