Recently Chalcedon wrote a piece entitled, Enemies of the Church?, which has prompted me to expand on the concept of what an enemy or a friend consists and also to explore the radical new concept that we are all ’somehow’ OK from our own points of view and should even befriend our enemies, bear with their subterfuge and listen to their demands for a so-called [but always temporary] peace: for there is always a new demand more dangerous and more harmful to the soul which follows. Every sin that puts a soul at risk has its start in little and seemingly inconsequential things. It is why the spiritual life and the corporal life of a Christian is fraught with so many dangers; satan prowls through this world desiring our souls and is adept at attacks both external and internal; in our interior minds and souls and also in the external world or within the Church Herself.
It is not a new thought to understand the underlying truth that men are all ‘brothers’ beneath the skin and a desire for the Christian to do all in his power to help his fellow men find salvation in the Lord. It is in this regard that we take our understanding of Christ’s words to love our enemies; to live in peace and love as Christian brothers and sisters and to attempt to teach by way of the Gospels the truths of Faith so that the unlearned might one day save his soul has been a way of life from the primitive beginnings of Christianity.
However a false peace has never been proposed and a life, lived without both friends and foes during its lifetime, would simply be a life lived in total isolation. And even then, I think the hermits and desert fathers would attest to enemies that dwell in our own breasts which need to be fought and subdued and are often quite more harmful to our final state than those whom we wrestle with in the world. But to make this idea clear, I would have you understand that I am separating the general from a specific or personal animosity. For such is often a result of misunderstandings, deep seated anger and such sensory appetites that may often lead to very serious sins and scandal. So I speak of a general, non-specific type of enemy [quite often an ideology or heresy] that must be resisted, fought and rejected by way of faith and/or reason that we might not be drawn into their vile or banal modes of living and rejecting the virtues for the baseness of immorality.
Christ likewise showed great concern for His sheep; that they might not be a meal for wolves. He warned them to be aware that there would be wolves that appeared as other sheep. He also warned of shepherds who did not properly act as vicars of the True Shepherd which is always Christ. He called these shepherds hirelings; who bear the name shepherd but in truth are merely doing a job like any other . . . caring more for themselves than the good of the sheep and who run and dodge all dangers that might cost them their lives, reputations, wealth, status, dignity or any other vanity which they relish.
We, like the apostles, were also told by our Lord to extricate ourselves from the midst of those who will not hear the Good News of the gospel and to shake the dust from our sandals as we go. And St. Matthew tells us that that if a sinner or heretic is corrected, first in person in the presence of other witnesses and then publicly before the Church, they should be treated as a heathen and a publican [or other translations have it; a gentile or tax collector]. My Ignatius Catholic study Bible then makes the obvious remark about this verse: ‘The choice of these terms suggest that Jesus requires a policy of non-association with those who are disciplined by leaders of the Church.’ St. Paul makes a similar statement in 2 Corinthians 6:14 “Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” Of course, as Chalcedon has written quite well about virtue signaling, I suppose we could mark that up as a good example of it. 🙂
Suffice to say that I find great wisdom in recognizing a wolf for a wolf, a hireling as a hireling, and an unbeliever as an unbeliever. And I take refuge in the above words for my instinctual reaction to certain evils in this world to withdraw, separate from or to defend against what is objectively an enemy of the faith.
The same can be said in secular civil society. It is sound advice to separate from those whom will never abide with your society’s way of life and can only do harm to your person and perhaps to your country should they one day influence the laws that govern it. For I am of the opinion that problems arising today in Christianity and in the Western World are caused by one and the same phenomenon. It is a disregard or a complete abandonment of the old laws or Truths and the fundamental precepts of law and order itself, which did not give us a guarantee but did aid in our feelings of security and justice. The enforcing of laws and common truths created a law-abiding society that was substantially peaceful. But without enforcement of such laws we head toward anarchy where no peace is possible.
Of course St. Paul had another way to speak to unbelievers [or enemies of Christ and His Church’] which is today recognized as being very un-Christian in its ‘tone’ and directness. No ecumenist of neo-Modernist worth would ever imagine using such language:
Acts 13:6-12
6 And when they had gone through the whole island, as far as Paphos, they found a certain man, a magician, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesu:
7 Who was with the proconsul Sergius Paulus, a prudent man. He sending for Barnabas and Saul, desired to hear the word of God.
8 But Elymas the magician (for so his name is interpreted) withstood them, seeking to turn away the proconsul from the faith.
9 Then Saul, otherwise Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, looking upon him,
10 Said: O full of all guile, and of all deceit, child of the devil, enemy of all justice, thou ceasest not to pervert the right ways of the Lord.
11 And now behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a time. And immediately there fell a mist and darkness upon him, and going about, he sought some one to lead him by the hand.
12 Then the proconsul, when he had seen what was done, believed, admiring at the doctrine of the Lord.
Verse 10 is rather harsh for our modern ears but then, we cannot blame Paul for this outburst because we are told in verse 9 that it was the Holy Ghost that said these things through him. But I would say that our enemies in society and the Church are those who might ought to have similar words applied to them. For they also are full of guile and full of deceit. As well they are for all purposes a child of the devil and the enemy of all justice who never cease to pervert the Church or our civil society. They need not be struck blind physically for they are blind spiritually and if they cannot be converted to civility or to the Truth of Christ then must be abandoned in their blindness. One can only pray that Christ takes away their blindness and sets them on a path back to both civility and Truth. Then perhaps they might find one to lead them from their blindness.
May law and order reign throughout society and may the Truth be recognized and followed as relentlessly and tirelessly as a policeman in pursuit of a hot donut. These are those whom I consider my friends on earth. The rest of my friends reside in purgatory or heaven.
All Along the Watchtower 
“My Ignatius Catholic study Bible then makes the obvious remark about this verse: ‘The choice of these terms suggest that Jesus requires a policy of non-association with those who are disciplined by leaders of the Church.’ ”
Fair enough. tell me, again, who is the leader of your Church?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Leaders, not leader. There is no guarantee that some leaders will be wrong while others are right. It must be that the Pope and any Bishop is in agreement with the defined teachings of the Church that He was given the duty to preserve . . . much like a President and the other members of our government must preserve the Constitution. It is a sign of the crisis which we are suffering under; that practice has been separated from teaching and that bishop opposes bishop.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know, in a way I was kidding, but not entirely. Your Church like all churches is a human structure, and therefore fallible, and given to family quarrels. I’m no fan of this Pope, as you know, but he is also sinned against by what gets reported, and perhaps by his bureaucracy as well. My church is screwed up enough that I don’t cast stones at others, but as I said the other day, all churches have this problem, and its a difficult one. I still think that most (at least) are basically good men, although that doesn’t mean they aren’t misguided. And like all of us, when attacked, we get defensive and hunker down, and that only makes it worse.
LikeLiked by 2 people
First of all I am glad you made the comment you did . . . as it is perfectly valid to do so. Secondly, we are not called to blind faith but faith informed by reason. If we see a series of practices instituted which are in opposition to a defined teaching then we must examine the situation and see if it is merely an opinion, a teaching or an attempt to consciously and purposely weaken the teaching of the Church. For the latter would be quite a serious thing for a Churchman to undertake . . . behavior of a wolf rather than a shepherd.
Yes the whole world is living in perilous times which requires that we use faith and reason to the best of our ability and to continue to inform ourselves and thus further form our consciences so that we will not be deceived.
But that we are in turmoil is not even a maybe but is certainly a yes. For the smoke is great and the opposing thoughts, actions and words tell us that both are wrong or only one is right. Best to seek what is right and fight the good fight. Cheerleading or ostrich necking is not helpful.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed. And that is the point I’m trying to make (I think C. is too, by my read). When in the heat of discussion we all often go too far, and it can read as us putting ourselves over our church, and sometimes over God, Himself. We know you don’t really, but when we are debating a point like this, there are two (at least) sides, and it works against everybody when we start sounding like the Inquisition (from either side). Sometimes we just need to sit back and take an even strain. And that may be the hardest thing of all, especially when we care deeply about something.
Often it’s best to do what you did today, sit back and think it through and do a post, comment streams here are the wonder of the age, but sometimes (for all of us) haste can make for unwarranted claims and hard feelings.
Now if I can remember that myself, it will be a miracle. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well hopefully we are all trying to further our knowledge and improve our analysis rather than sitting back. During the Arian problems one thing that nobody accused these folks of is not taking a side and not speaking their minds according to the best of their abilities. And as it ended up even the Pope went from wrong to right as did others in this fight that looked, for all purposes, as if Arianism had won. They had the majority and yet they erred.
I have confidence that in time, all that is fuzzy logic at the moment, will eventually be clear.
C is a good man and wants above all else to preserve what little unity is left in the Church and it is to be respected. But sometimes a St. Athanasius must endure exile and great scorn and yet prevail in the battle. So the arguments, no matter the venom [no worse than those in the past], do have a place in the Church. Without them we would never have come to the teaching that we have today. A wrong teaching is like putting a jigsaw puzzle together by inserting a few pieces from a different puzzle which obviously isn’t going to give a satisfactory result. One mistake in one small part of theolgy effects every other theological premise that tries desperately to fit with what turns out to be objectively false . . . making them all false. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, all I’m really saying here is that too much heat makes far too much smoke, and yes, they did it in the old days, as well. Funny part is, I’m not sure we ever really overcame Arianism, mostly the Moslems did. I’m thinking about some things in that area, we’ll see if they come together.
That’s the thing we’re all people of good will here, but people wandering in might not always see it, and we want to keep that evident, as well. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, positions taken in good will are not that which we will be judged. But specifically when the subjects are those which, if we get it wrong, subverts moral truths. So even if we have good will, we are still challenged to take up our Cross and follow Him. We must, above all, hold to the Faith of our Fathers if we believe that the Truth within the Church is going to be preserved until Christ’s Second Coming . . . or will there even be faith when He returns. He did say it and it is a warning which is frightening to contemplate in regards to the implied ramifications of such a condition.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Allow me to try to explain my reasoning regarding the two statements of Christ . . . that we will not be orphaned [that the Church will overcome the gates of Hell] and the seeming incongruent idea that there may not be faith left when the Son of Man returns. In my mind it is specifically a possibility if we continue to separate teaching from practice. The teaching will last and thus the Church will overcome the gates of Hell. The practices which seem to defy those teachings will have the effect of loss of faith among the members of the Church. I think it is a distinct possibility that this is occuring presently and we do not see an end to it in sight. In fact it looks as though more of this is going to take place in the future. So the outcome of loss of faith among member is a logical consequence of this path forward. Just my two cents.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve enjoyed reading both this excellent post by scoop and the following comments.
This penultimate comment by scoop is a very relevant one.
” Yes, positions taken in good will are not that which we will be judged. But specifically when the subjects are those which, if we get it wrong, subverts moral truths.”
We often do get it wrong even when we are acting in good will.
“We see through a glass darkly, writes St Paul., but then face to face, now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known.”
I read those words with enormous relief and a sense of being let off the hook by God. As a pastor one has to make decisions and give counsel where there are no clear directives. Even the devil can quote scripture to his own advantage.
Pastors and Bible thumping evangelists often do more harm that good. I often find myself having to pick up the casualties that have resulted from over zealous and dogmatic preachers.
Surely in many cases it is our own conscience that has to decide a particular course of action even when it appears to run contrary to received teaching. We must never forget that we are dealing with vulnerable human beings.
Alas many souls have been damaged by those who see many issues in Black and White when there are shades of gray.
It is my belief that many of the evil or injurious deeds performed by practising Christians originate in specific core Christian beliefs which are usually regarded as orthodox. Far from being distortions of normal Christianity, such ills are engendered by it, and the more uncritically these views are held, the more destructive they are likely to be.
.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I disagree in as much that there is always, among those who would have the Teaching scrubbed, an apologetic of excuses and situational ethics to put forward a belief that there is no objective sin but that, since our lives are lived in the confused grey areas of life, no guilt, shame or reason for using one’s will to avoid sin or to convert. Of what use is it to justify people in objective sin?
If they accept the principle that they have violated objective sin, then all mercy can be shown as we try to lead them to overcome the desire to continue in sin. But if the nature of their sin is such that they are not repentive but rather defensive of their sin then you must be careful that such ideas are not being introduced by these people into the Church as satan’s leaven. What was objectively sinful then becomes a personal decision rather than a given objective law or commandment. No 2 people will ever be the same and therefore we have introduced situational ethics into the Church as a principle to counter its teachings. To believe or not believe has now become an equivalent good depending solely on the decision of the person who has violated the teaching. Surely, the sinner is not the arbiter of correct behavior or teaching but the Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve had to confront and come to grips that by conviction I’m a conservative believer, but in practice a liberal one when it comes to dealing with many of the very awkward and sometimes insoluble problems experienced by my congregation. This includes those who only attend church at odd intervals. I have witnessed some tragic disasters resulting from “preachy” ministers zealous evangelists.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ll re-word that comment.
By conviction I’m a conservative Christian but with my congregation it doesn’t work out that way. I tend towards liberal solutions when it comes to dealing with the very real moral problems of individual souls. The so called “orthodox” answers in confronting the real and personal dilemmas of people can lead to tragedy and even suicide.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Of course. As most pastors do. The fact that suicide and tragedies, as you say, are in the balance shows that there is already a deep seated guilt and reconginition of their sin. The fact that they bring themselves to the Confessional or come for counseling already tells you that.
The unrepentent soul who is merely contemptuous of the Church and the moral teachings are those whom we are counseled to keep away from our midst. They do nothing but put others in a constant occasion of sin . . . which among Catholics is supposed to be avoided.
LikeLiked by 3 people
2 Corinthians 6:14-17 is extremely instructive in considering ‘ungodly covenants’:
“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. … be separate … and I will be a Father to you” 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
Her Paul uses six different Greek terms to impress upon us the absolute essential truth that we must be separate from all forms of evil in order to avoid being joined to Belial (Satan). Each term has a different nuance giving the sense of the mental and emotional attitudes or ties. The emotional senses and feelings produced by ‘ungodly covenants’ are expressed and brought out in these terms. See below:-
Bound (:14) – Greek heterozugeo : yoked i.e. joined together unequally.
Partnership (:14) – Greek metoche: a partner, fellow, partaker sharer.
Fellowship (:14) – Greek koininia: a having in common, communion, share in experientially.
Harmony (:15) – Greek sumphoneo: concord, to sound together as in music, to be in accord.
Common (:15) – Part – to have a part or share in.
Agreement (:16) – Greek sunkatathesis: to be well minded, well disposed towards, to agree with is similar to “Giving hearty approval” to evil in Rom. 1:32.
We are warned not to be joined to others in the sense of – partaking, sharing, having in common, being in concord, having a part with, being well minded towards or agreeing with them in anything that is evil or ungodly. Ignoring this warning is equated to being well disposed towards idols, touching what is ‘unclean’ and sharing with demons in 1 Corinthians 10 (see above).
Avoiding such maintains our relationship with God as our Father.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Brilliant exposition. Many thanks Rob.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very good Rob. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great picture of a catholic priest. I love it.
You guys keep calling the catholic cult of personality “the Church”. Im aware that you really do think its Jesus true body. You guys gotta wake up fast. Tomorrow is promised to no man. I was looking at a pic of the Vatican yesterday, and its lined with about 130 graven images. Even befor one wanders inside, one is socked with tons of graven images on the outside. Its letting you know that its anti Christ. You all have read the old test. You know how much god hates graven images. But oh no, …you’ve got a snappy answer. We don’t worship them…so its fine and dandy. You’ve also got snappy answers to the thousand other unbiblical things the CC does.This is not why people wind up in hell. They wind up in hell because they didn’t know Jesus. For whatever reason, they never asked Jesus to show himself to them. Satan tricks people into believing they are OK. Hes got billions of ways. His biggest way is religion. His best way is the Catholic Cult of personality. Members commit suicide because of priest abuse. They are gone. The others die with a mouth full of crackers thinking they are doing gods will. They are gone. In south America o
and other places, they have this mix of voodoo and Catholicism. They die and are gonners. To be honest, Catholicism is pure voodoo. The costume turns his back to the gonners and does some shill act with some trinkets and says “Hocus et Pocus” and makes god appear. You guys really believe that. And the CC has you thinking that you’ve met god and are now good to go….for 6 days…then you have to come back and push the refresh button. Oh, and leave your tithes in the basket.
Jesus stands at your door this whole time. hes knocking to come in and lift the burden of life and false works religions off you. Today is the day of salvation.
LikeLike