Tag Archives: Christianity

7 Years.

15 Wednesday May 2019

Posted by in Faith, Julian of Norwich

≈ 21 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Seven years ago today, a humble little Christian blog raised its head up to look over the parapet at an increasingly hostile world. It has grown much and occasionally waned since that day, but has never lowered its head, nor has it changed its mission from that first day, as expressed in our tagline:

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34.

None of us who actively contribute here, were here that day. Scoop and I are probably the oldest contributors left, and I’m not very active at present, but my heart remains here.

If you are newer than we are, I’d recommend that you poke around in the archives, there is much to enjoy and much to learn, from many viewpoints.

All of those who are listed in our sidebar as contributors gave us much wisdom and remain in my thoughts and my prayers. Those no longer active are missed and I give thanks daily for those who have carried the load, before and now as well.

Mother Julian of Norwich, a great favorite of us here leaves us a couple of thought on this day.

  • “He said not ‘Thou shalt not be tempested, thou shalt not be travailed, thou shalt not be dis-eased’; but he said, ‘Thou shalt not be overcome.”

But also:

“All shall be well, and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well.” ..

Both are important to keep in mind.

So raise a glass and thank God, that there are those who keep their head up and their eyes on the prize of Heaven, and then drink to the next seven years, that they may see us continue the Lord’s work.

Good Friday meditation

19 Friday Apr 2019

Posted by in Easter, Lent

≈ Comments Off on Good Friday meditation

Tags

, , , ,

As I said on my blog earlier this week, Eastertide is one of those times when I think of absent friends and family, whyever they are absent. One of the people I miss, of course, is Jessica, the founder of this blog. Some things are not in our hands, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t remember what we have learned from them. Back in 2013, Jessica wrote a meditation on Good Friday for NEO that I found very moving. Some of you may not have seen it, and reading it again will hurt none of us, so here it is. [Neo]

We call it ‘Good Friday’. The altar in my church is stripped bare, and the crucifix is covered, and we leave with the smoke from the extinguished candles filling the gloom of an English spring afternoon; with temperatures stuck next to freezing, the shivers could have a number of causes; but meditating on the Passion of Our Lord is enough.  The sense of sorrow is an echo of that first Friday at Calvary, and it is hard to know, at that moment what is ‘good’ about it.

But when we stop in prayer and think, we can see precisely what is good.  It is the day on which all our sins are loaded on the Lamb of God, when He takes upon His shoulders your sins and mine. What wonder is this? What have we done to be so rewarded? How can this be? What wondrous love is this? Good? Yes, the best news mankind ever had or ever will have. Whatever confessional allegiances divide us, I like to feel on this day of all days, the Cross of Christ unites us.

I leave it to all the clever men to explain what in my heart I know is simple. Christ loves me. He loves us all. He did what He did, He suffered what He suffered willingly. He knew if would be terrible, and He would have preferred it if it had been otherwise; but that makes it all the more precious.

The American expression ‘when the rubber hits the road’ comes to mind. This is where our salvation was earned, and not by us. With every nail that was hammered in, as with every stripe He bore for us, we are being saved. If we find those sufferings horrible, we should know that is how God finds our sins; God did something about it – what are we doing?

It was through the breaking of that body on the Cross, and the spilling of that blood that we see what He meant on the evening of the Last Supper. His Body was broken for us; His blood spilled for us. Some of us believe that at the Eucharist we receive His Body and Blood as He said; others that it is in memory of Him. Well, Good Friday is no time to rehearse what divides us – yet more stripes we apply to His back. It is a time for prayer and contemplation.

Mine is that for all of us, the Spirit of Christ may be with us this Easter, and that we may know Him as Lord, and worship Him and be thankful for what He has done for us. What did we do to earn it? Nothing. What can we do to be worthy of it? Just heed His call to repent and follow Him in belief that He is the Christ.

In the shadow of the Cross we kneel and pray and give thanks – we are redeemed through His suffering. As the ancient hymn has it, let all mortal flesh keep silent. He has saved us. It is Good Friday – be sad and yet rejoice.

Religious Blogging, Brexit, Trump, and Two Kingdoms

22 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Anti Catholic, Blogging, Church/State, Lutheranism, Politics

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

My dear friend Kathleen and I had a short discussion the other night on her blog, Catholicism Pure & Simple. It was as such things are both productive and friendly. One of the things we touched on was whether it is appropriate for a specifically Catholic or even a Christian blog to touch on things like Brexit and President Trump.

It becomes almost impossible to shirk the debate when our governments intrude on religious beliefs and practices, such as marriage, abortion, freedom of worship and practice.

And so while CP&S has touched on these matters, I seem lately to write of little else, my self imposed remit is political with an American, and Lutheran foundation. That is part of why I’m rarely writing here lately, while congruent if feels just a bit unseemly, and a fair number of you read my blog as well. And there is no point in dragging my friends into the line of fire to no purpose, and that is pretty easy, as our friend Caroline Farrow‘s current problems with the British legal system indicate.

In any case, imagine my surprise as I’m looking around this morning to seeing Dr. Gene Veith of the Cranach blog working on exactly what Kathleen and I were discussing. He excerpted an article by British author Will Jones entitled: Progressives vs conservatives: This is why we can’t just all get along. British, American, British, American, British, Catholic, Lutheran, who says our problems are different. In any case here’s Gene, with Dr. Veith in bold:

. . .The divide [is] between those who believe the world has a given order that ought to be respected because it makes things go best in the long run, and those who do not believe this and think invoking such order is little more than a tool of oppression wielded by the powerful against those they exploit.

The social order, says Jones, expresses itself in institutions such as the family and the nation-state, along with the ideas and practices that support them, such as sexual morality and the rule of law.  Conservatives support them–with religious conservatives seeing them as facets of God’s creation–while progressives find them oppressive.

This conservative respect for natural and social order contrasts sharply with the progressive outlook which is typically hostile to claims of inherent order in nature and society. Progressives tend to follow Marx in regarding such ideas as devices created by the powerful (in Marx’s case, the owners of capital, these days, more likely straight white men) to perpetuate inequalities and restrict people’s freedom of action.

Progressives and conservatives both say they want people to be happy, but they understand very differently what this involves. Whereas conservatives see happiness as emerging from respect for the natural and social order, for progressives almost the opposite is the case: the individual’s pursuit of happiness must as far as possible be achieved by not conforming to the social order. This is because to do so is to become complicit in oppression and to succumb to the ‘false consciousness’ of being happy when enslaved. . . .

Conservatives and progressives differ also in their visions of freedom. Conservatives seek the freedom that comes from respecting the boundaries inherent in the created order. Progressives, on the other hand, aim for freedom from the created order – from biology, from the family, from the nation, from God. As a consequence, progressive freedom has a strong authoritarian bent. This might seem paradoxical, but in fact it follows directly from the progressives’ need to oppose by force the outworking of the order of nature, and to silence those who attempt to point out the problems with this.

So how does Christianity fit with this?

Yes, Christians do believe that God has ordained the family.  The “nation-state” is a relatively modern invention, unknown in the Middle Ages, classical antiquity, and tribal societies, but the “state” as some sort of social organization with earthly authorities that restrain evil and protect the good is indeed one of the God-given “estates” for human flourishing (Romans 13; 1 Peter 2:13-14).  Also, Christians believe that moral truths are part of a reality built into creation and human nature (Romans 1-2).  So by these definitions, Christians will tend to be conservative.

No one will be surprised that I heartily concur with them both, and with Kathleen as well. Here is part of one of my comments to her, which sums up my view pretty well.

As a Lutheran, I would point out that the Kingdom of the Left Hand (secular government) is also of God, although not as directly as the Kingdom of the Right hand. And so our governments on earth are also of concern to us. But while I straddle that fence, you, here, are more focussed. And, in truth, I don’t write much on the other blog for that reason as well, since I find my well pretty dry lately on church topics.

And Dr. Veith ends with this, which is certainly appropriate for us to discuss as well.

[…] The Christian’s hope is fixed not so much on this world, which will soon pass away, but on the world to come–on Christ who has atoned for the sins of the world and who will reign as King over the New Heaven and the New Earth.

Is this right?  Am I missing something?  How does this accord with Two Kingdoms theology?

I do think Jones’s analysis explains a lot, from our current political polarization to the behavior of people that we know.  But does it follow that such extreme polarization is inevitable, that there can be no common basis for consensus and social unity?  Is it impossible, in these terms, to have a “center”?  How did we as a nation function in years past?  Were there different ideologies at work?  If so, might we bring some of those back?

 

Catholicism in the public square

06 Wednesday Feb 2019

Posted by in Anti Catholic, Catholic Tradition, Church/State, Faith

≈ 34 Comments

Tags

, ,

newman_john_everett_millais

In England, and thus by extension the English-speaking world, we inherit a tradition which has been called the “Black Legend,” through which English Catholicism has also been viewed. It makes the Catholic Church the centre of anti-English activities, a cruel, intolerant organisation characterised by the Inquisition. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs  provided a foundational text here, portraying Queen Mary I as “Bloody Mary,” a theme now so ingrained as to be to some extent immoveable.

In his influential “A History of the English-Speaking Peoples,” Churchill captures this legend in his treatment of England’s history as one of struggle against the Catholic Powers of Spain and France. The implication of a special English “destiny” was one passed into the American DNA via the idea of “manifest destiny.” All good stories have a villain, and the Catholic Church makes an excellent one in this narrative.

On top of these older narratives, we have a newer one, propagated via aggressive modern secularism, which is hostile to Christianity, but particularly so to the Catholic Church. This new narrative has widened its scope beyond the old victims, who were mainly white male; women and children have been included in the charge sheet. The Church is portrayed as anti-women because of its stances on abortion and contraception; indeed there are some areas where even praising this is seen as “offensive.” It is also hostile to “LGBTI” rights. And then there is child abuse and its cover up. As ever, there would be no smoke without fire, and on the last of these issues, the Church still seems a little tone deaf in some places, and, of course, the large areas where it is not get no attention from its critics.

All of this amounts to a sustained narrative which creates difficulties being a Catholic in the public square. So how do we tell a different story without simply being accused of a biased “revisionism” for its own sake?

In the first place we need to get our history right.

If there was a time when Christianity was alien to England, it was before the invasion of the Emperor Claudius in A.D. 43. By the time of the great rupture we call the Reformation, Christianity had been in these Islands for nearly 1500 years. It did not arrive in the seventh century with St Augustine. Bede is clear that it was already here, and what is sometimes called the “Celtic” Church seems simply to have been the Christianity that was already rooted here before the early fifth century when the Romans withdrew.

England, then Wales and Scotland have a longer history of being “Catholic” than they have of being anything else. Indeed, as Cranmer, Laud and the whole Anglo-Catholic tradition exemplify, a very large section of English Christianity saw itself a a reformed Catholic Church. Beowulf, Chaucer and Shakespeare are all products of Catholic culture, as is our education system, as is our law and morality. Reasons of State made it necessary for the English and then the British State to play up the separation from Rome; but that was not the same as separating from what Christianity had given to England, and indeed, Britain.

If we could examine our history afresh and tell this story, rather than the grand narrative of Churchill, then we should make steps in a positive direction. This is not about “revisionism” for its own sake, but it is, as with “Black” and “Women’s history,” a recognition that unless the story of a neglected group is told, it is hard for us to ass that group in a proper historical context.

I would suggest that viewed from this angle, the narrative is one that unites us. The story it tells is of the way in which the Faith created a civilisation with values and norms which are still needed; created an art which still influences us; and created a culture which still matters.

It is not, and never should be, a matter of denigrating in turn those who have denigrated the Catholic Church, but rather one of emphasising the values of the Faith and their positive legacy and continuing influence. It is of saying that Catholics is not “Irish,” or “Spanish” or “other,” it is part of the English spirit. But who will tell that story, who will write that curriculum for out schools, and who will promote the attempt to correct the balance? And equally important, who will do it in a non-partisan manner which recognises that no story is wholly black or white?

I would suggest that if prominent Catholics are looking for good causes, they might do worse than work towards the creation of an Institute that might begin and promote this good work.

We have schools and universities which are world-class, but we have inherited a tradition of reserve and perhaps have so thoroughly taken on board the need to “keep our heads down,” that we have hesitated to take the lead where we are able. We would not want to be accused of being sectarian, not least by those who are.

But there is nothing sectarian in capturing again the ways in which Catholicism is part of our heritage. In 1852 Newman delivered a series of lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England which repay study. He outlined the problem and part of the solution. We are still looking for Catholics who will go forward with the task he outlined then. Shall we, in our time, say the way is too hard and the task too difficult? It was in Newman’s day. It is harder now. It will get no easier.

 

 

Augustine, Bonaventure, and Aquinas and Divine Illumination

31 Thursday Jan 2019

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg

I have been attempting to rehabilitate St. Anselm’s the ontological argument for God. However, no matter how hard I try my own understanding of discovering knowledge is similar to Aquinas’ that it begins with the senses and the recognition of the world. The issue that I’ve developed is that I disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas/Aristotle in regards to universals/forms like beauty and truth. Therefore, my ontological argument has more or less become an epistemological argument for God which is Augustinian in nature and tied to Augustine’s theory of knowledge of Divine Illumination.

I’ve been reading a bit on Divine Illumination and Aquinas’ Aristotelian Agent Intellect synthesis into his first principle of knowledge. And not surprisingly, it appears that there are those who claim that Aquinas makes a strict separation from Augustine in regards to Divine Illumination. However, it’s not a settled debate and Peter Kreeft argues in the Summa of the Summa that Aquinas is more Platonic/Augustinian in his understanding than Aristotelian, albeit many Thomist would disagree with his sentiment–I’ve personally asked one. Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that what Thomas does is merely move the understanding of Divine Illumination to the material sensory of understanding. For instance, two different husbands may look at their respective spouses and believe their own is more beautiful than the other. Some would argue this indicates that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, what appears to be innate from the two husbands is beauty itself. Sure, it’s their senses that tell them what is beautiful, nonetheless, it is not their senses that is the source for understanding the concept of beauty itself. If this is true, then, it would render that not all knowledge is gained through the senses.

The more I think about this interpretation of knowledge with Aquinas’ synthesis on the sense revealing knowledge, the more I agree with it in accord to Augustine’s philosophy of Divine Illumination in regards to Romans chapter 1 and 2 which speak about knowing God “is manifest in them” and the “law written in our hearts,” I firmly agree with Augustine that we’re in possession of certain knowledge by God; however, we’re only moved to discovering by interactions with creation as attributed by Aquinas emphasis on Participation. So, when we judge beauty, for instance, the concept of the beautiful is divinely instilled by God; however, it is through our experience with a sunrise, a mountain, the ocean, or our loved ones that stir the understanding of the beautiful.

Upon doing more reading on the topic, I find this to be very similar to Bonaventure’s assessment. Perhaps, I need to read more Bonaventure. Naturally, the above is just a short examination of my current work. I am at the moment writing a more detailed treatise on the subject of illumination.

And if you think Augustine and Bonaventure are right, support Augustinian thought by buying this cool shirt! And help me teach our youth about St. Augustine.

Get yourself a new St. Augustine Pear Stealing T-shirt!

30 Wednesday Jan 2019

Posted by in Catholic Tradition, Faith

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Hello folks!

Things are starting to get back to normal for me, thanks for your prayers. I’ve just started my first M.A. class in theology; we’ll see how that goes. Nonetheless, I’ve been inspired by some other Catholic publications to create T-shirts to help evangelize the faith by creating conversation starters!

My first t-shirt is tied to St. Augustine’s Confessions which is a reflection on an event of his youth in which he stole pears with another fellow. The Latin reads: “But it was not what my unhappy soul desired.”

https://teespring.com/st-augustine-pear-stealing#pid=369&cid=6525&sid=front

560

The money raised from this T-shirt will be used for obtaining copies of The Confessions for our local Public School Religions Program, as well as other youth. Give it a thought!

God Bless,

Philip Augustine

Did Augustine Advocate for Forced Conversions? It Appears so, But Does Jesus?

29 Monday Oct 2018

Posted by in Catholic Tradition, Commentaries, Faith

≈ 27 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

image.png

The other day, I was having a very fruitful conversation with a gentleman on what I would label it as more or less epistemology and morality. In that particular discussion, the gentleman revealed that St. Augustine of Hippo is cited to have expressed the idea of forced conversions in regards to the Donatist. I have read quite a bit of Augustine’s own work and studied his biography, at least in comparison to the average layperson, so I was a bit surprised at the accusation against Augustine in regards to the Donatist.

Augustine’s written work is quite vast, so much so that I once heard a professor quip, “If anyone has ever said they have read all of Augustine…they are a liar. So I admitted that it’s very possible I just haven’t encountered Augustine’s thought on the matter in a particular document. Again, what struck me odd about the accusation is that the celebrated works of Augustine against the Donatist is his ten homilies on the first letter of St. John. In those works, Augustine illuminated in the conflict what the writer in that particular letter did which is “God is love.” It would be much to my surprise in comparison to that body of work that in another body of work that Augustine should then insist on forced conversion.

(I also think it should be wise at this point to define what is meant by forced conversions, which I would characterize as coercive measures as loss of life, freedom, and property. In regards to being converted by weight of theological ideas—as the Donatist were already Christians– such as Hell, I do not consider that to be a forced conversion.)

The gentleman sent a link from a website which did not cite that particular source from it claimed that Augustine spoke about compelling the Donatist. Nonetheless, it appears that Augustine of Hippo did advocate for forced conversions. My research has led me to a document of collected works called: A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatist. In that particular document, there is a letter that I’ve read several paragraphs in which it doesn’t seem to be taking out of context that Augustine advocated for forced conversions:

19. But as to the argument of those men who are unwilling that their impious deeds should be checked by the enactment of righteous laws, when they say that the apostles never sought such measures from the kings of the earth, they do not consider the different character of that age, and that everything comes in its own season. For what emperor had as yet believed in Christ, so as to serve Him in the cause of piety by enacting laws against impiety, when as yet the declaration of the prophet was only in the course of its fulfillment, “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and their rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed;” and there was as yet no sign of that which is spoken a little later in the same psalm: “Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.” How then are kings to serve the Lord with fear, except by preventing and chastising with religious severity all those acts which are done in opposition to the commandments of the Lord? For a man serves God in one way in that he is man, in another way in that he is also king. In that he is man, he serves Him by living faithfully; but in that he is also king, he serves Him by enforcing with suitable rigor such laws as ordain what is righteous, and punish what is the reverse. Even as Hezekiah served Him, by destroying the groves and the temples of the idols, and the high places which had been built in violation of the commandments of God;2or even as Josiah served Him, by doing the same things in his turn; or as the king of the Ninevites served Him, by compelling all the men of his city to make satisfaction to the Lord;4or as Darius served Him, by giving the idol into the power of Daniel to be broken, and by casting his enemies into the den of lions; or as Nebuchadnezzar served Him, of whom I have spoken before, by issuing a terrible law to prevent any of his subjects from blaspheming God.6In this way, therefore, kings can serve the Lord, even in so far as they are kings, when they do in His service what they could not do were they not kings.

 

  1. Seeing, then, that the kings of the earth were not yet serving the Lord in the time of the apostles, but were still imagining vain things against the Lord and against His Anointed, that all might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, it must be granted that at that time acts of impiety could not possibly be prevented by the laws, but were rather performed under their sanction. For the order of events was then so rolling on, that even the Jews were killing those who preached Christ, thinking that they did God service in so doing, just as Christ had foretold, and the heathen were raging against the Christians, and the patience of the martyrs was overcoming them all. But so soon as the fulfillment began of what is written in a later psalm, “All kings shall fall down before Him; all nations shall serve Him,”8what sober-minded man could say to the kings, “Let not any thought trouble you within your kingdom as to who restrains or attacks the Church of your Lord; deem it not a matter in which you should be concerned, which of your subjects may choose to be religious or sacrilegious,” seeing that you cannot say to them, “Deem it no concern of yours which of your subjects may choose to be chaste, or which unchaste?” For why, when free-will is given by God to man, should adulteries be punished by the laws, and sacrilege allowed? Is it a lighter matter that a soul should not keep faith with God, than that a woman should be faithless to her husband? Or if those faults which are committed not in contempt but in ignorance of religious truth are to be visited with lighter punishment, are they therefore to be neglected altogether?

 

Chapter 6

 

  1. It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word. Some, indeed, set before us the sentiments of a certain secular author, who said,

“’Tis well, I ween, by shame the young to train, And dread of meanness, rather than by pain.”

This is unquestionably true. But while those are better who are guided aright by love, those are certainly more numerous who are corrected by fear. For, to answer these persons out of their own author, we find him saying in another place,

“Unless by pain and suffering thou art taught,

Thou canst not guide thyself aright in aught.”

 

But, moreover, holy Scripture has both said concerning the former better class, “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear;” and also concerning the latter lower class, which furnishes the majority, “A servant will not be corrected by words; for though he understand, he will not answer.”4In saying, “He will not be corrected by words,” he did not order him to be left to himself, but implied an admonition as to the means whereby he ought to be corrected; otherwise he would not have said, “He will not be corrected by words,” but without any qualification, “He will not be corrected.” For in another place he says that not only the servant, but also the undisciplined son, must be corrected with stripes, and that with great fruits as the result; for he says, “Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell;” and elsewhere he says, “He that spareth the rod hateth his son.”6For, give us a man who with right faith and true understanding can say with all the energy of his heart, “My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?” and for such an one there is no need of the terror of hell, to say nothing of temporal punishments or imperial laws, seeing that with him it is so indispensable a blessing to cleave unto the Lord, that he not only dreads being parted from that happiness as a heavy punishment, but can scarcely even bear delay in its attainment. But yet, before the good sons can say they have “a desire to depart, and to be with Christ,”8many must first be recalled to their Lord by the stripes of temporal scourging, like evil slaves, and in some degree like good-for-nothing fugitives.[1]

It’s interesting to note that Augustine did speak of the “argument of those men” who claimed that the Apostles didn’t look for the “state” to incite forced conversions. It appears that in the letter Augustine looks to prove his case by looking through the Old Testament and finding where Jewish Kings use coercive measures. However, as Augustine is a Christian, it would seem much more prudent to look to the message of Jesus Christ, whom he professes is God.

Now those who wish to claim that Jesus makes some sort of comments to support violent measures will often cite: Luke 22:36 and Mt. 10:34. However, it appears in the context that both are symbolic in regard to the context of what Jesus is saying those particular passages. For example, in Luke 22:36, Christ says:

36 ¶ He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. [2]

In this particular passage of Luke’s Gospel, Jesus is likening himself to Isaiah’s Suffering Servant in Is. 53:12. However, as the Apostles’ take him literally by saying “here are two swords,” Christ’s indication that is “good enough” is as Theophylact claims “Very well, leave it” because they did not understand his meaning.

In Matthew 10:34-38, the context of his meaning is a bit more clear as he is speaking to the division caused by his overall message:

34 ¶“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. 37 ¶ He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it. [3]

So, Jesus’ message causes division. Naturally, this would be the case if one claims to have the truth and to be the truth (John 14:6). However, Jesus doesn’t seem to indicate the need for violent coercion for believing in his message. Mark 12:29-34 he teaches that one should love their neighbor as themselves. It is in Lk 10:29 that we find that our neighbor is those who are in need of our mercy regardless of their affiliation. In Mark 10:22, after Jesus proposes that the Rich Young Man give up all his possessions and the young man responded by leaving, Jesus allows him to depart:
22 At that saying his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. [4]

John chapter 6:65-66 also indicates when disciples stop believing in his message are allowed to depart from his presence:

 

65 ¶ And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him. 67 Jesus said to the Twelve, “Will you also go away?”[5]

 

Time and Time again, Jesus proposes; doesn’t impose, and allows people to leave and go back to their everyday lives. In fact, Jesus implies in the parable of Wheat and Tares that it isn’t the job of those here to remove the tares as they may uproot the wheat with them, but rather it is reserved for the day of judgment.

So, what about the Catholic Church? During the Vatican II council and during the Pontificate of Pope John Paul II, it appears that the Church saw the error to the common phrase of more traditional-minded Catholics “error has no right.” Pope John Paul II wrote in On the Value and Content of Freedom of Conscience and of Religion:

3. The Catholic Church has synthesized her thinking on this subject in the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration, Dignitatis humanae, promulgated on December 7, 1965, a document which places the Apostolic See under a special obligation.

This declaration had been preceded by Pope John XXIII’s Encyclical, Pacem in terris, dated April 11, 1963, which solemnly emphasized the fact that everyone has “the right to be able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his conscience.”

The same declaration of the Second Vatican Council was then taken up again in various documents of Pope Paul VI, in the 1974 Synod of Bishops’ message, and more recently in the message to the United Nations Organization during the papal visit on October 2, 1979, which repeats it essentially: “In accordance with their dignity, all human beings, because they are persons, that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and, therefore, bearing a personal responsibility, are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and to direct their whole lives in accordance with its demands” (Dignitatis humanae, no. 2). “The practice of religion by its very nature consists primarily of those voluntary and free internal acts by which a human being directly sets his course towards God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind. But man’s social nature itself requires that he give external expression to his internal acts of religion, that he communicate with others in religious matters and that he profess his religion in community” (Dignitatis humanae, no. 3).

“These words,” the UN address added, “touch the very substance of the question. They also show how even the confrontation between the religious view and the agnostic or even atheistic view of the world, which is one of the ‘signs of the times’ of the present age, could preserve honest and respectful human dimensions without violating the essential rights of conscience of any man or woman living on earth” (Address to the 34th General Assembly of the United Nations, no. 20).

On the same occasion, the conviction was expressed that “respect for the dignity of the human person would seem to demand that, when the exact tenor of the exercise of religious freedom is being discussed or determined with a view to national laws or international conventions, the institutions that are by their nature at the service of religion should also be brought in.” This is because, when religious freedom is to be given substance, if the participation of those most concerned in it and who have special experience of it and responsibility for it is omitted, there is a danger of setting arbitrary norms of application and of “imposing, in so intimate a field of man’s life, rules or restrictions that are opposed to his true religious needs” (Address to the UN 34th General Assembly, no. 20).[6]…

6. The Catholic Church is not confined to a particular territory and she has no geographical borders; her members are men and women of all regions of the world. She knows, from many centuries of experience, that suppression, violation or restriction of religious freedom have caused suffering and bitterness, moral and material hardship, and that even today there are millions of people enduring these evils. By contrast, the recognition, guarantee and respect of religious freedom bring serenity to individuals and peace to the social community; they also represent an important factor in strengthening a nation’s moral cohesion, in improving people’s common welfare, and in enriching the cooperation among nations in an atmosphere of mutual trust.

In addition, the wholesome implementation of the principle of religious freedom will contribute to the formation of citizens who, in full recognition of the moral order, “will be obedient to lawful authority and be lovers of true freedom; people, in other words, who will come to decisions on their own judgment, and, in the light of truth, govern their activities with a sense of responsibility, and strive after what is true and right, willing always to join with others in cooperative effort” (Dignitatis humanae, no. 8).

Now, as admitted, I’ve not read everything by Augustine, so if anyone wants to correct me on this particular reading on his work feel free to do so. Augustine did write retractions, so perhaps he may have retracted these statements. I see blog posts as a forum to discuss and discover the truth.

 

[1]Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists,” inSt. Augustin: The Writings against the Manichaeans and against the Donatists, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. R. King, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 640–641.

[2]The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), Lk 22:36.

[3]The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), Mt 10:34–39.

[4]The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), Mk 10:21–22.

[5]The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version; Second Catholic Edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), Jn 6:65–67.

[6]https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/messages/pont_messages/1980/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19800901_helsinki-act.html

The Heresy of Conciliarism

23 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by in Faith

≈ 51 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

An interesting reflection on councils, doctrine, and heresies in regards to the Pope. I wanted to share this post with AATW to see if there were any thoughts of agreements or refutation on thesis presented here. Note, I did comment for a clarification of what is meant by “judge.” Please refer to that for further explanation.

HOPE IN THE STORM

Many of the laity are falling into the heresy of Conciliarism, which was condemned by the Fifth Lateran Council , 1512-1517.

The heresy of Americanism also involves the heresy of Conciliarism, which limits the power of the pope and indicates that people have a right to judge him.

Here are some of the facts surrounding this heresy, under a few bullet points. In other words, as much as we do not like a pope or what he says, the laity cannot judge him, especially cannot judge his soul.

Many commentators on blogs are in error regarding calling the present popes names or labelling him. Beware, your own soul is in danger of not only false judgement, but inappropriate judgement.

Points

• Because of the tendencies of both religious and secular leaders in the 13th and 14th centuries, that is kings and schismatics, the nature of the papacy had to become…

View original post 413 more words