It is sometimes alleged that Catholics claim that their church is the only real church, but this is not quite accurate. We certainly believe it is the Church Christ founded, but we believe that the Orthodox Church, although not in communion with us, is also a valid church; we believe that other Christian communities also have in them, to a greater or lesser extent, something of the true faith. The question of orthodoxy is one which has occupied the Church from the beginning. It is precisely what Apostles such as John, Paul and Jude, as well as St. Peter himself, concerned themselves with. Those who ‘preached another Gospel’ are not to be received. Even in Apostolic times, as we can see from St. John’s Epistles, it was not easy to assert authority or orthodoxy. One of the main themes of the history of the early Church is, as we have seen recently, the working out of this problem. This is why, to many of us, there is something of human arrogance and pride in the oft-heard view that each individual can use Scripture to interpret itself; if history teaches us anything, it is that this is not the case.
The notion that the early Church was somehow corrupted and lost its way not only contradicts Christ’s assurance that even the gates of hell would not prevail against it, it flies in the face of history. One of the earliest and most influential heretics was Marcion, whose money and intellect won him great influence in Rome in the second century. That notwithstanding these things, he was excommunicated, shows that there was a mechanism for determining authority; that there were still Marcionists a couple of centuries later, shows how difficult it was to maintain unity. It also bore witness to another theme of our history – the extreme difficulty of securing reunion once communion is broken. It is 1600 years since Chalcedon, and the distance between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Church is not wide in theological terms; historically it is a chasm which is proving next to impossible to bridge. The two sets of Orthodox cannot agree, either. For all the efforts of the ecumenists, it is hard to point to a schism which has been healed.
It was to deal with such matters that the Ecumenical movement was formed. But it has tended to proceed on the assumption that the tent must be big enough and the compromises wide enough to comprehend just about everyone. In turn, that has led conservatives in all churches to regard ecumenism as a dirty word, synonymous with syncretism. The urge to find a common ground of agreement has too often led to a search for the lowest common denominator – and few will follow there.
Pope Benedict was a true ecumenist, he offered the olive branch to the SSPX, he made overtures to the Orthodox, and he established the Ordinariate. All of this was real ecumenism – offering those interested in the Church the chance to get to know it better, and, if possible to be fully part of it. The Pope is the one Bishop who, historically, has been recognised as the first among equals. Only Rome can offer a real ecumenism, and it behoves her to behave, as she did under the last Pope, in a manner which shows that the father always welcomes the prodigal home – and no fatted calf is safe when then happens.
One of the most common misunderstandings by those outside the Church concerns the degree to which the faithful can believe what the Church has not explicitly approved. Because of the ‘black legend’ and the nonsense propagated by those who do not even know they are influenced by it, there is a view which holds that unless the Church has explicitly approved a devotion or belief, Catholics cannot practice it. Exactly the opposite applies. Until and unless the Church explicitly disapproves a devotion or belief, the faithful are free to hold it. Those who see in ecumenism a deliberate attempt at syncretism are free to hold that belief, but it is not the teaching of the Church. The Church holds the fulness of the truth, but it does not own it, it is happy to share it with all who want to receive it; it is, after all, a Church and not a museum.
I pray we will all be pulling in the same direction as time goes on. The election results today are a reminder of division.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They are indeed 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ecumenism is a dirty word if we are all encouraged to pull in the same direction instead of the correct direction. C used a quote a couple of days ago of George Neumayr saying that Pope Francis was a prototypical “progressive” Jesuit. (I must point out that C was objecting to Mr. Neumayr’s premise for his book, The Political Pope.) Well, it looks like Mr. Neumayr is right on. The appointment of Fr. James Martin, SJ, seems to prove him correct as Mr. Ferrara’s article states.
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/fe/perspective1023.asp
LikeLike
Steve, there’s an assumption there not being examined, which is that the ‘correct direction’ is not the ‘same direction’. That may, or may not be true, but it isn’t axiomatic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
C, I encourage you the examine the assumption. 🙂
LikeLike
I have, but if you do it from the narrow perspective of some of the more self-righteous Catholic groups, you will end in schism. The Pope is the Pope, and if people do not think he is, they are bad Catholics, and I’m taking no advice from those unable to see the obvious – which is he is a properly elected Pope, and has not pronounced infallibly on anything which runs counter to the teaching of the Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The current anti-Francis gang seems to me the far-right version of the earlier anti-JP2 gang on the far-left of the Church. Both of them sound shrill and ridiculous. Movements such as these only serve to further polarize an already troubled Church. As much of a bugaboo as Amoris Laetitia is to the alarmists, so far as I’m concerned until the Church definitively condemns it as containing error, we’re free to believe (or not believe) even some of its more controversial aspects, and we are not allowed to judge our brothers and sisters who may fall on the other side of whatever are our opinions on it. It’s not like the earlier Arian controversy where the Arians continued teaching error after it was officially condemned.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Absolutely with you, Steven. If people expect a Pope who always confirms their views, they are in the wrong church.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Steven, you have hit my point on the head. Sodomy is condemned by the Church, but Pope Francis is encouraging and promoting those that promote it.
LikeLike
And C, I don’t want a Pope who confirms my views, but one that confirms the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. Billions have been paid out by the Church in the last 30 years all over the world because of homosexual priests acting contrary to the Church’s teachings. The homosexual mafia is alive and well inside the Vatican and it seems that its chief horn blower is Pope Francis. Read Mr. Ferrara’s article and tell me where he is wrong. Look at it this way. If Pope Francis was promoting polygamy and promoting those who do, would you continue to sit on your hands?
LikeLike
First, the main crime is paedophilia, which is, not the same as homosexuality, so I am sorry to see you confusing the two. Heterosexual ioriests have also caused big payouts. The common factor is priests refusing to obey their vows – do you have any way of ensuring that does not happen? Focussing on one set of disobedient priests and ignoring the others does rather suggest not only an obsession with one sexual sin, but a misdiagnosis of the real problem, which is want of obedience.
LikeLike
Bravo good brother Chalcedon. Your speech almost convinced me that there are no catholic priest perverts.
LikeLike
Which is not what I wrote. The old lyin’ spirit at it again.
LikeLike
Uh, true, that’s is not what you wrote. I think I didn’t word that comment so good. My mind, where ever it is, sometimes races ahead of me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
C, ignorance is bliss I guess. The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male; and of all the victims, 22% were younger than age 10, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages of 15 and 17 years.[3][6][8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report#Profile_of_the_victims
So, only 22% of the victims were prepubescent, i. e. paedophilia. So, eliminating the girls, all the rest were homosexual acts, by far the majority. This is history, isn’t that your strong suit? 🙂
LikeLike
I would count, as would English law, all those under the age of consent, which here is 16, as paedophile offences.
LikeLike
Steve, appointing a pro-homosexual activist to a communications consultant position isn’t the same as challenging Church teaching on homosexuality. I agree that he shouldn’t be offering such appointments to dissidents because doing so raises questions as to whether he’s got some underlying agenda, however he has not taught anything outright which has been condemned by the Church. It may be that sometime in the future something he taught might be condemned by the Church, but as of now the only thing he’s guilty of is making some questionable appointments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steven, the first half of your 2nd sentence proves the error of your 1st sentence. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church about scandal, 2284-2287. The pope either upholds the teachings of the Church, or he doesn’t. In this case he doesn’t and causes scandal. Re-read Mr. Ferrara’s article and if you disagree, then we can agree to disagree with no hard feelings. Thanks.
LikeLike
I missed the bit where it says the Pope cannot appoint a communications spokesman who advocates debating the teaching to the church.
LikeLike
Oh, yes he can, but at the very least by that act he causes scandal. As others have said also. Read this article, follow the links, and read the comments. Or not. 🙂
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/06/jesuit-james-martin-back-to-the-reformation/#comments
LikeLike
Let’s face it Steve, from the moment he was elected the Catholic snowflakes have been taking offence – if he resigned they’d take offence that he existed.
LikeLike
Steve, I’ve read the article and still disagree with it. It has all the shrill, polemical tone that I expect from a far-right website with an agenda. The Pope appointing Fr. Martin to a communications consultant position doesn’t mean we jump to the conclusion that he’s challenging Church teaching. He also appointment EWTN’s Chairman of the Board as a new communication consultant, of which there are 13 total. To say that indicates Pope Francis is trying to overthrow the Church with some pro-gay militia, is a stretch. So far as I can tell, Pope Francis has and continues to uphold the teachings of the Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amazing. Its still working like a charm. I give credit to the Babylonian priests of Dagon. They still have the populace believing in them. They left Babylon when it was conquered and slowly made their way to Greece.There, they continued to ply their trade, which is their dress and their religious services. Impressive to the weak of mind. Their big fish hats and flowing costumes and holy looking services. They claimed to be priests of their gods. Greece was conquered, the people in disarray, the priests moved to Rome, and continued to represent their gods and goddesses. Follow the money.They remain there today, making a living on representing the gods of the people. As always, they do no work, except to perform their shows.Idol shepherds the bible calls them.
LikeLike
Best laugh of the day. If you knew any history, you’d know how absurd what you have just written is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re drawing on Hislop’s “The Two Babylon’s”; that book was refuted long ago. I’m no Catholic, but as a historian, I can assure you most of it, if not all of it, is bunk. If you want to criticise Catholicism, you should stick to the reasoning provided by the Calvinists at Triablogue (although they have a few blind spots). Better still, have a look at Augustine of Hippo and see what you make of him. He is one of the major thinkers who gives distinctiveness to Western Christianity – the Orthodox aren’t keen on him.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Indeed, I had an Orthodox professor attempt to disparage Augustine for being one of the pillars of the Reformation and supporting predestination. She said, “Well, what I’ve read from Augustine…” I replied, “There is probably only 3 people in the entire world who have read every single word of Augustine, but we can see in his retractions…”
I’m a great admirer of St. Augustine, but also from a historical perspective, I believe you have to read his writings from a perspective that much of his writings are his way of “getting through” conflictions with in his own intellect. Furthermore, Robin Lane Fox’s book on Augustine I believe illustrates this well–albeit I disagree with Fox’s Anti-Christian conclusions, St. Augustine is working to rid himself of his former Manicheanism.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I never read the Two babylons and im not going to waste time reading Agustine. You historians want d to debunk what I maintain. I wonder how you tidy up the fact that present day catholic priest costume and Babylonian dagon costumes are the exact same, and the shell game they play on the table during their religion shows is the same as dagons, 2800 yrs ago.How do you make the pine cone staff of Bacchus that the pope now holds go away? How do you explain the Mother Child Tammuz graven images the CC is full of, when they originated with the Babylon mystery religion befor the tower of Babel? Looks like the Babylonian religion of good brother Nimrod is alive and well on vaticanus Haunted Hill. No matter how it got there…its there.
LikeLike
Can you really be this thick? The nonsense you spout originates in Hislops’s book, which was ,one ago shown to be nonsense. You have not the slightest shred of evidence for this rubbish, but then that old lyin’ spirit in you doesn’t care, it makes a fool of you.
LikeLike
Wheres the shred of evidence that Mary floated up to heaven? Give me just a shred and ill go away and never come back.
LikeLike
Where’s the evidence your lyin’ spirit is of God?
LikeLike
A) Dagon is not a Babylonian god, but a Canaanite/Amorite god (also favoured by the Philistines).
B) Dagon was a fertility god, and had nothing to do with fish. The Hebrews thought he was connected with fish because their word for fish is “dag”, but Dagon’s name is probably connected with wheat.
B) The fish figures in the Mesopotamian reliefs are indeed priests, but they are supernatural figures, e.g. the Apkallu. Human priests may have dressed this way, but that is a lot harder to substantiate.
D) The Catholic mitre is a descendant of the mitre worn in the Greco-Roman world and is probably an allusion to the turban (translated “mitre” in Greek) worn by the Jewish priests.
E) The vestments of Catholic and Orthodox clergy are a combination of allusions to Jewish priestly garments and an ossified form of clothing worn in the Roman Empire in the 4th century onwards. It was common to wear robes and poncho-type clothing in that period. Trousers were considered the clothing of barbarians and one Roman Emperor actually passed a law forbidding senators from wearing trousers. When the Western Empire collapsed the priests carried on dressing this way, even as the lay population adopted “barbarian” dress.
F) Catholic liturgy is modelled on the Book of Revelation, which in turn is modelled on the Levitical rules and scenes in prophetic books like Isaiah.
G) Mary’s title “Queen of Heaven” may be coincidental, but even if it is consciously drawing on Asherah, the point is a polemic one. The Catholics are saying that the pagan gods have no place in Heaven; their place in the Divine Council has been taken by believers, which is the point St Paul makes when he says in Ephesians that we have been seated in the Heavens and when he says that we will judge angels.
H) The Catholic use of statues may or may not be a departure from early Christian practice. The early Christians painted their gathering places (Wiki the church at Dura Europos and the catacombs of Rome on the Via Labicana). These places have long since been abandoned, so we cannot tell if they made use of statues which have vanished from the archeological record.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you good brother Nicolas, for that thought out rebuttal. After all is said and done, the catholic priests wear the same costumes as Nimrods priests. Your chief pedophile stil l holds the pine cone staff.
LikeLike
Well, I’m not a Catholic myself, so to some extent the point is moot. But I sincerely believe the Babylonian thesis is not the right explanation for the outward forms of Catholicism. For me it really comes down to how salvation and grace are handled, and that was the core of the revolt from medieval Catholicism by Luther.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes. good brother Luther took a trip to Rome and was socked in the face with the total corruption of the CC.
LikeLike
I think it was the sale of relics and indulgences that particularly offended him. I when he visited the Rome of his day, he thought of Jesus casting the money changers out of the Temple.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you ever read anything other than click-bait. even the lyin’ spirit in you might blench from such crude nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The sale of heaven was successful beyond the belief of its originator. This put the catholic church on the map, if you will. It now has money flowing in, uncountable. Money buys power, and power corrupts. Its beautiful. Collect the receipts for heaven, the purchaser is happy, the seller is happy, and no refunds allowed. To my knowledge, no one has come to get their money back if it didn’t work.
Makes Bernie Madoff look like an amateur.
LikeLike
Yes, good brother luther was a catholic priest in good standing, One trip to Rome was enough to convince him that it was a snake pit of vice. My comments about the catholic church are charitable compared to what Luther had to say about it.
LikeLike
If you really believe that it was all down to a single visit to Rome, there’s no limit to your credulity.
LikeLike
My understanding is that Luther was driven by what sociologists have called “salvation panic”. If he were alive today, he might have been diagnosed with anxiety and/or OCD. Not that I mean that as a disparagement, merely that he was a very passionate, driven man. He used to throw bread rolls at Satan. I think he found that religion in his area/understanding had turned God back into a distant figure, rather like the invisible God of the Old Testament. He was looking to recapture the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. He wanted John’s phrase “God is love” to have power and meaning in his life, not to be a mere platitude.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My hat goes off to good brother Luther. The beautiful part about it is….the demonic catholic church couldn’t go in and kill him like they wanted to do. Good brother Luther got to live his life out. Obviously he had protection from above.
LikeLike