Lenin’s famous booklet, What is to be done? argued that the proletariat would not be radicalised simply though activities designed to secure better pay and conditions. He was right; they weren’t. By extension, one might assert that Catholics have not been converted through an emphasis on how the Church deals with social and economic problems. Indeed, it would be interesting to know how many converts came into the Church because of its social teaching? That is not to say that such teaching is not important, nor to deny the Gospel imperative to help the poor, but it is to suggest that such an emphasis lies to one side of what brings people to Christianity and to the Catholic Church.
Social and economic concerns provides a point of openness to the world, but is not solely the concern of the Churches; if we provide nothing more than what the world can provide, then why would anyone go the extra mile to join a Church?
We either provide a remedy for the spiritual ills of the world, or we are wasting our time, which would be better employed helping those many agencies whose reason for being lies in tackling such ills. We can provide a reason for a bias toward the poor, and we can, do, and should, insert a moral dimension to what might otherwise be a rather utilitarian approach to the poor. We help because they are our brothers and sisters, not because they are suitable objects for our social engineering or because helping them would be a salve to our consciences. We help them because Christ tells us we should.
All of which is to say that while we can rightly concern ourselves with some of the things that are Caesar’s. we do not speak with special authority in those realms; men and woman can do good via working in them, but they do not become more Christ-like by so doing.
A sense of brokenness haunts us. We have many names for that internal emptiness which assaults our most private moments, and we have developed a rich language of therapy to help each other, not to mention a multi-billion pound pharmaceutical industry. Yet with all of that, the problem persists and, like death, is universal.
The purpose of Christian culture is to inculturate the people of the world with the culture of the Kingdom of God, and helping others is simply part of that wider culture. The Good News is that we do not need to get what we deserve. In no way do I “deserve” salvation. I cannot earn it through right belief or orthopraxis. If I were judged by the standards even of this world, I would be lost. But I have a great advocate in Christ, who has paid the price for me.
I am saved by His sacrifice, and I am being saved by it, and at the last I hope that I shall be saved, and that in my way of living I can evidence what He has done for me. If my Faith has no fruits then it is in vain; if my deeds are not done in Him, then they will avail others, but not my eternal soul. That is why knowing Christ is so important. It lies at the heart of everything.
So, for those who have, they say found Him, I cannot and do not say they are wrong. I say only that for me, He is to be found where He said He would be found, which is in His Church. I believe that Church is the Catholic Church, and that being in Communion with Rome is the safest guarantee of that fact. But I would not and do not dare say that others who say they have found Him, and evidence that in their lives, are wrong. I can and do say that the Church is our best assurance, and the best guide against too great a dependence on our own emotionalism and intellectualism.
It is the task of Christian Pastors to proclaim the Good News. Healing is there for what ails us. Do we do that? Is that what people think of when the Church is mentioned? If not, then we might ask what part we play as disciples? Do we give reasons for the hope that is in us? Do we model our Faith or just preach it? If our Faith does not quicken our hearts, then what is to be done?
Excellent post. Unfortunately, the clarity of the evangelistic message is undermined by hierarchies in various churches saying that all religions are ways to God. Christianity and other religions are mutually exclusive: you cannot simultaneously be a Christian and a Muslim: Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Indeed, thou shalt have no God but God, and God can be defined in various non-Trinitarian ways is a poor piece of evangelism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed – Cranmer’s piece on Pope Francis’ joint declaration is what provoked my comment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Bolshevik slogan ‘Peace, Bread and Land’ certainly spoke to immediate material necessities but in Orthodox Russia it would be a mistake to overlook the transcendent, Eucharistic echoes that these demands would have raised in the minds of ordinary Russians. It would be unfortunate if Christians today deliberately adopted slogans which intentionally excluded such echoes.
LikeLiked by 4 people
It would indeed my friend. Despite its best efforts, atheism did not destroy the Faith, it made it stronger.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I suppose the worrisome bit for Christians and especially Catholics of our day is to interpret the intentions of various actions which are as numerous as are the choices of action that present themselves to us. For instance, is the Church really concerned with the poor or are they simply taking money from the UN and the US Govt. to take care of illegal aliens? Are they justifying the means regardless of the ends or the other way around; like monies going toward abortions in the case of UN initiatives or the creation of a new liberal voting bloc (or supporters of socialism) in the case of illegal migrations? Certainly one can always wrap any cause within a moral cloak when it suits a political ideology or social agenda.
Having lost moral high ground and having abandoned our own teachings on subsidiarity many are confused and easily support that which may in fact be wrong and oppose that which might be just. It is a terrifyingly confusing period of time for Christians to wade through at the moment. But as we navigate through these mine fields we need to rely more, in my opinion, on the catechetical teachings than on the weasel words that have become the new gospel message that most people hear on a weekly or daily basis from the spokesmen of our churches or the pastors we listen to every Sunday.
And if that were not bad enough we are called to take a stand; to explain the principles from which we make our decisions; and then to stand fast in the face of a secular tide that is gaining more momentum as the Christian flock seems to increasingly embrace the viewpoint of the elites of this world.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Is there a popular conservative Catholic website that has a resource of “safe documents” (Catechism, synodical statements, etc) as a library section to give Catholics guidance on these issues?
LikeLiked by 3 people
There are websites with searchable catechisms and others with papal documents that can be searched by keywords and such as well. So there is no excuse for Catholics not to know what the Church teaches at its essence if they are interested enough to look for it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have also used the Vatican’s Latin resources to navigate certain constructions in modern documents.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am guessing that that would be of great use for Latin scholars.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes – I imagine the interest for Latin would be among canon lawyers regarding binding documents (although the jurisprudence is not something I am familiar with) and among theologians for the precise meaning of terms like transubstantiation, etc.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed that is so. However, we have to keep in mind that Latin scholarship is pretty low these days; even our present catechism had to be written in French before it was submitted to the Vatican scholars to translate into Latin . . . a first as far as I know.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is a complex matter, and as a Protestant I would be of limited help – not that it’s my business – because there are several layers.
Theology:
A) Meaning in Scripture
B) Meaning in non-Scriptural documents (overlap; co-extensive; completely separate)
C)Accurate rendering in vulgar tongue
Canon Law
A)Meaning in cited document
B)Meaning as developed since cited document
C)Meaning linkage between law and other documents (Scriptural or otherwise)
And for both theology and law: limits on understanding.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A good list of things to keep in mind when reading. Sadly, people today seem more intent on the literal and ignore colloquialisms and even words that may have been ‘new constructs’ at the time of their usage: such as the words in the Lord’s Prayer concerning ‘give us this day our daily bread’. Jerome has it as ‘give us this day our super-substantial bread from the word ‘Epiousios’ found nowhere else in all of ancient Greek writing. It is supposed that it was a construct from a word in Aramaic that Christ used and is another interesting tidbit as to the Catholic belief in the Eucharistic Bread being the risen and glorified Christ as the actual body, blood and divinity of the Savior Himself. And it is funny how the prayer has come down to us as it is which makes little sense. It would make sense to say ‘give us this day our bread’ or ‘give us our daily bread’ if all he was speaking of was sustenance for the body.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I keep a few rules in mind when doing proper analysis of Scripture.
A) A word can have a range of nuances, so one should not assume that a meaning it bears in Passage A will hold in Passage B.
B) Context determines meaning. Assuming one understands the surrounding words and narrative, which of a number of competing meanings fits best with the overall thrust of the passage?
C) Allow for translation uses, “code” uses, and linguistic development. Koine Greek is not classical Greek, and non-Greeks do not use Greek the way a native speaker does; just as European Union English is not co-extensive with British English. Translation philosophies also play a part (see the LXX): word-for-word vs. dynamic equivalence.
D) Take account of the purpose of your analysis and its inherent limits: if I am applying a general principle to a personal choice, I must distinguish between the universality of the principle (i.e. its binding nature) and the particularity of the specific application.
E) Take account of the tone, agenda, etc of the writer, including what is not said alongside what is actually said. Scripture may describe something that is evil in order to show that it happened, without necessarily saying that X was evil. The careless reader should not make the mistake of assuming that the presence of something in Scripture is in and of itself an endorsement of that thing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think that there is 1 more thing to keep in mind; and that is how did the Christian community come to believe and the Church come to teach on the passage in question if one can find such references. Tradition itself helps us understand how the ancient fathers understood things which now come under frequent attack.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I treat non-Scriptural documents as evidence, but not as binding documents. If the majority swings in a particular direction, that is prima facie evidence that this should be the basic position – but there may be fine-tuning to be found in one author over another. Time can also be a factor: the Didache is closest in time of non-Scriptural documents, whereas Augustine of Hippo is Late Antique.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is true. The Didache is brief and almost a quick summary of the faith and moral maxims while the philosophers and theologians expound and explore deeper consequences and explanations to be explored in greater depth . . . which has spurned so many writings that nobody could possibly read them all in a lifetime. But their work is appreciated for as Fulton Sheen said the early fathers did the calculus and we only left with simple arithmetic. It almost sounds like things happened in theology that is exactly the opposite of how we tackle most endeavors (the easiest first and hardest last). But that is debt of gratitude that we must bear to these early intellects that shaped the future of Christianity for all time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Are you familiar with Alfred Edersheim’s classic, “The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah”? I would recommend that as a resource. Viktor Tcherikover’s work on the Jews and the Hellenic world is also quite handy – both are tomes. Alfred Edersheim’s work on the Temple is pretty good too. Unfortunately, from what I remember of his chapter on the Olivet Discourse, he appeared to have preterist tendencies. But then, I don’t read him for eschatology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, no and wish I had become an ardent Christian much earlier in life. And although I may have read over 400 Catholic books (as best as I can count) there is much that I have not read and sadly due to failing eyesight I no longer can enjoy reading like I once did. I read more online where I can manipulate the contrast and size of text . . . so mostly articles these days or encyclicals etc or Biblical passages can still be read . . . but much of the other works I would like to read I find difficult.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah – well, I’ll see if I can find something online – his stuff might be public domain anyway, since he wrote in the 1800s. There might be some Patristics in there that you would enjoy – he’s good on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha at any rate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s an online link:
Click to access The%20Life%20and%20Times%20of%20Jesus%20the%20Messiah.pdf
As I thought, it’s public domain, since it is an old book now. It’s in PDF format, so you should be able to adjust the text size and put it in reader mode. I think you may also be able to get it on Kindle – I have his book on the Temple service on Kindle. He was a Jewish convert to Christianity and eventually became an Anglican priest, so there may be some liturgical stuff and/or apostolic succession in there. I only read 1 chapter per day because it is quite dense – and I have some disagreements on historical interpretation, but this is a classic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Nick, I’ll take look.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish, but alas if there is I am unaware of it
LikeLiked by 1 person
We are called to bear witness, and if we don’t then we shall continue to struggle. Governments attend to the will of this world, we have to attend to that of God.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Amen to that and a reason why institutions like yours and all the way down to the grade schoolers need to learn their Catechisms. Most of their parents have not read it or are under the spurious belief that our teachings have changed.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Itchy ears have always been a problem. If we learn by rote that is good, but if we do not own what we have learnt, we observe in the letter and not the Spirit. Alas, we suffer from both phenomena, and in the end, all we can do is live as our Faith tells us.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes it is the misuse, in my mind of ‘the Spirit’ that has been of great concern and sometimes forgives, contraception, homosexual marriages, gender dysphoria, adultery, fornication and the general destruction of morality. Alas, from there we have now moved into the political sphere and misuse the ‘spirit’ of our teaching to allow much of what has been condemned for centuries. But I take your point. There is a genuine and proper use of the spirit of the law . . . though I found that present in most of the writings of the Pope’s and saints of old anyway . . . and I assume that it was taught by our pastors as well. Now, more often than not, I get a hint of the idea of 60’s social revolution. Everything has a sense of a protest of some sort against some ‘social justice’ argument which may or may not truly be a point of justice (God’s Justice presumably). Finding unity in the Church is going to be a large order since we have divided into a tribalistic bunch of groups and now pick our parishes due to the pastor that one parish might have or another that we want to avoid. So we fight for unity with other Christians (a noble cause) and yet there is anything but unity within our own Church anymore.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Perhaps a ‘spanner’s been thrown in the works’?
According to your pope and his ‘brother’ Grand Imam of al-Azhar, religious pluralism is ordained by God, so reports Archbishop Cranmer blog, in their signed Document for Human Fraternity for World Peace & Living Together’. Cranmer quotes:
‘Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept..’
Cranmer observes, ‘The Bishop of Rome is not merely saying that God permits the diversity of religions, but that He wills it; He wills the consequences of free will. This means that the God who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ – ‘the way, the truth and the life‘ – also willed (not merely permitted) Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, Guru Nanak, Zoroaster and Sun Myung Moon – other ways, multiple truths and different lives. Man has free will to choose which path to follow from the plurality of religions he wishes, because, according to Pope Francis, God willed the diversity of spiritual truth; He willed spiritual confusion.’
LikeLiked by 4 people
Ooops, omitted link > http://archbishopcranmer.com/pope-francis-god-willed-the-reformation-and-the-church-of-england/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the link
LikeLike
The only way that the statement ‘could’ make sense according to Catholic teaching is given by Fr. Z here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2019/02/francis-signed-document-saying-that-god-willed-the-pluralism-and-diversity-of-religions-whats-up-with-that/
So you are on the right track when you speak of evil being ‘permitted’ because God does have a permissive will as well as an active or positive will. Otherwise we would not have free will. The way the Pope stated this and his lack of explanation has once again obscured this and has painted God as one who has an active or positive Will in regards to false religions . . . making all religions sanctioned by God.
LikeLiked by 3 people
As usual it depends on semantics. In the sense that if God willed it not to be so, it would not be, of course pluralism is “willed.” But if one means by “willed” is it in accord with God’s plan for mankind, the answer is no.
Sometimes it is better to say nothing than to leave oneself open to the charge of misrepresenting the teaching of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the link, elucidating in its brevity, and for your precis Scoop.
LikeLike
“and at the last I hope that I shall be saved,”
Better stop hoping and invite Jesus into your life and know you are saved. If one is not sure one is saved….guess what.
“So, for those who have, they say found Him, I cannot and do not say they are wrong.”
I say they are wrong. You don’t “find” Jesus. Hes at your door knocking. You simply open the door and let him in.
“He said He would be found, which is in His Church. ”
He never said that
” I can and do say that the Church is our best assurance, ”
Not 24 hours ago you chided me for quoting a dogma of the CC that says ” there is no salvation outside of the catholic church”. You said I took it out of context, yet you say the same thing.
Jesus has 7 spirits and 7 stars in his hands and 7 golden candle sticks which are the spirits of his 7 churches. None of them are in Rome.
LikeLike
At no point does St Paul or any Apostle say “I am saved” If you think you are better than they are, best of luck with that.
LikeLike
They never said the word airliner either. The word saved is modern coinage for “saved from the wrath of god”. Saved and born again are the same word. I use them interchangeably. I use “saved” a lot because it keeps me from typing 2 words…,born again. Im lazy in that department.
Jesus did use the term “born again”
I don’t understand why the term “saved” seems to get under your skin so much. Maybe you can explain it to us in a post…..Why is it wrong for people to consider themselves saved…… I would write the post but the post writing button is gone from the home page. Ive been blocked or something.
LikeLike
Does it ever occur to you that having to make things up to explain why what you believe is not in the Bible means that you are in effect lying? You have to lie because the Bible does not support your beliefs.
Yes, of course we are born again in Him, but that does not mean that we cannot slide back away into Satan’s arms. One of Satan’s tricks is to tell us to read the Bible as he wants, not as Jesus wants.
You fall for that one every time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good brother Chalcedon, I don’t see how you can say that nothing I believe is in the bible. I believe Jesus had brothers and sisters a plenty. You believe he didn’t. I believe ye must be born again…you hate that notion. You ridicule being born again. But, you aren’t far off from lamblasting me, for I am worthy of being lamblasted.
LikeLike
I simply say what is true: no one in Scripture is “born again” as you claim to have been. You obviously know better how to translate Greek than the Greeks, as they recognise that ‘adelphoi’ has many meanings.
LikeLike
I don’t know about greek this or that. All i know is that I was blind and now I see.
LikeLike
In other words, you have no idea who came to you, but they said they were Jesus and you believed them. I have the title deeds for Manhatten Island here
LikeLike