Head of the CDF Urges Catholics to Welcome Ordinariate Converts
December 19, 2012 79 Comments
In the Catholic Herald:
Catholics in England and Wales should welcome members of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, the new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has said.
In an interview with The Catholic Herald, Archbishop Gerhard Müller said: “Many of those who have entered into full communion through the ordinariates have sacrificed a great deal in order to be true to their consciences. They should be welcomed wholeheartedly by the Catholic community – not as prodigals but as brothers and sisters in Christ who bring with them into the Church a worthy patrimony of worship and spirituality.”
Archbishop Müller, who was appointed prefect in July this year, oversees reconciliation talks with the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) in his new role. He told the Herald that “the SSPX must accept the fullness of the Catholic faith and its practice” as “disunity always damages the proclamation of the Gospel by darkening the testimony of Jesus Christ”.
He said: “The SSPX need to distinguish between the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.”
He later continued: “Everyone who is Catholic must ask themselves if they are cherry-picking points from the Church’s teachings for the sake of supporting an ideology. Which is more important: an ideology or the faith? I want to say to people in extreme groups to put their ideology to one side and come to Jesus Christ.”
Archbishop Müller also said that he had been an admirer of the current Pope since he was in seminary and used to read the Pope’s book An Introduction to Christianity during his formation. He said: “It was a new book at the time and the concentrated theological insights are ever present in my mind today.”
In his new position as prefect for the CDF he has a weekly meeting with the Pope for an hour. He said: “In private, we speak in our mother tongue, German, but in an official context we must speak in Italian.”
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Good advice also for Catholics in North America, Australia – and, dare I say it, New Zealand, South Africa, and India!
But what are we to make of the Gaudium et spes? And when is this going to be fully interpreted? Even as an Anglican myself, Roman Catholic people ask me about Vatican II quite often. I say ask your Catholic priest, and some say we have, and we get mixed answers?
I never viewed the Ordinariate Converts as less than my brothers and sisters. In fact, I tried to publicly support them at my Novus Ordo parish.
My family member rebuked me for this, and now my relation to them is somewhat strained.
One cannot but compare the welcome that Anglicans receive in their conversion to the Roman Catholic Church with the response of the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Thyateira (that is Greek for Great Britain, their hatred of the western tradition is so persuasive that even using western titles of non-Eastern nations is rejected) who declared, in response to a perceived threat of Anglican converts to the Church of Byzantium: “No proselytism, and no western rite.” Meaning, you English people are not welcome in our church!
Hey, come on, it’s not -that- bad, right? Let’s compare the “Meh” or “Huh?” Reaction we have in most RC parishes here. It seems like the clarity of the Church of Byzantium at least makes it known what they think.
It’s a sort of lukewarm reception from ordinary Catholics, in practice. Not the “LET’S SUPPORT THIS, PEOPLE! YEAAAAH!” on-fire reaction I wish we’d have.
We know what the Lord thinks of the lukewarm.
Dale, you always focus on the Greek Orthodox in UK. Antiochians and Russians are not Greek. Here is something from a Western Rite Russian Orthodox in England.
Did you happen to see this on either VirtueOnLine or Foolishness to the World (12/15) Blogs:
“This is interesting, especially since Dom James Deschesne is trafficking in some of the…. [issues]… that have dogged Anglicanorum coetibus. I’m glad our Ordinary Msgr. Steenson was able to reply…. Here’s the post. Dom James Deschene is the Abbot at the Church of Our Lady of Glastonbury which is attached to Christ the Saviour Benedictine Monastery (Christminster). He is Western Rite of the Russian Orthodox Church. He forwarded this observation and criticism of the Ordinariate. VOL invited Monsigor Jeffrey Steenson to offer a counterpoint.”
Michael, the so-called western rite of the Russian Church Outside of Russia (how ethnic can one get?) is so Byzantinized that calling it western demands a real stretch of the imagination.
Also, Michael, the official name of the Antiochians, is the GREEK Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, set up by the imperial government of Byzantium in opposition to the native Syrian Patriarchate. The only ones with a real right to the title.
I think Dale’s point proves that some Orthodox are simply sectarian, though thankfully not all!
I extremely rarely (to say the least) agree with you Rev, but this is such an occasion. I would even say “most orthodox”. The latest proof of this is this small booklet recently written by some Russian monk and prefaced by Patriarch Kirill explaining how Catholics and Protestants are not even Christians, but heathens.
+ Pax et Bonum
This is why we can’t have nice things.
I mean to say, why I stopped believing any “Ecumenical” hopes with the Orthodox. Having dreams of Christian Unity is nice. But it’s just a dream that will not be realized for the reason Don Henry has demonstrated.
Perhaps it’s possible with Constantinople- I think every other Orthodox hate Patriarch Bartholomew anyway for talking to Rome- but would it take Muslim invasion and domination in Russia so that the Orthodox Church there would stop being rabidly anti-Roman? Maybe. It’s not like the Russian Orthodox Church is above becoming a lackey for some other potentate for its survival.
Unfortunately it goes both ways, Ioannes. I’ve seen (and actually been subjected to, in person) some pretty awful things said about Orthodox people by Catholics.
There are nasty people all over the place. The Church is a hospital for sinners, true, but some of them – and I include myself – aren’t taking their medicine.
If the Church is a hospital for sinners? You’re at the stage where you only have to take medicine.
I’m still punching doctors and nurses in the face who have to amputate the seething, painful, gangrenous parts of my body.
Yet let’s retain hope that in Heaven, we shall be complete and glorified.
If all you want to do is focus on the crackpot ideas and anger of the few, you’ll find them in every faith group and grouping. No shortage of anti-RC Protestants and anti-Protestant RCs. And just look at the factions within jurisdictions. LCMS dislikes ELCA. Conservative RCs battle with liberal RCs. None of our groups is immune from immature behavior by a few. Is our job to stand up to anti-Christian behavior in all of its forms.
Michael, we are not talking about “crackpot ideas and anger of the few” what I have posted is from the leaders of the Church of Byzantium in Great Britain. Stephen M has just the same tunnel vision one might add. I am so happy that a few of the laity in his church are nice; but self-loathing does go a long way.
Not really, it just proves that Dale doesn’t like Orthodoxy and has found something else to take offence at. Personally speaking, I’ve found nothing but welcome from the Orthodox I’ve come to know – Greek, Russian, Latvian, Arab, even English (cradle English, mind – there are a small but increasing number of them, and the second generation of cradle English Orthodox are now starting school).
Of course, it could just be that I’m filled with so much self-loathing and hatred of my own country and its traditions that I’m blind to what wicked, awful, monstrously evil people they are. Perhaps I should just go back to being atheist; reading the comments on some of these blogs has certainly tempted me in that direction once or twice.
I am speaking sadly from experience with some, will just say, very Eastern Orthodox people, (ethnically). They thought of me as not a Christian, being Anglican, but Reformed and Protestant. Thankfully I have found some as our blog friend (Michael, American Orthodox, Antiochian), that are not like such.
Oh I’m prepared to agree with you that there are some nasty sectarian people out there, I just questioned the “proof” offered. The two Orthodox churches that I regularly attend (at the moment I’m dividing time between home in the Southeast and a short contract in the Midlands) are quite ethnically diverse, and one of them has a rather large English contingent. In both cases the services are always at least 50% English, sometimes 100% – and the bits in Greek or Slavonic are usually the unchanging parts. I suspect that the nasty sort of person doesn’t attend such churches. Indeed, one of the priests who helped me with my initial enquiry into Orthodoxy had the humility to say that some Orthodox Christians see themselves as Nationality first, Orthodox second and Christian last. He also suggested that this was slowly dying out because such insularity chokes rather than propagates the Gospel. Maybe the children are our future.
If you feel any sort of moral outrage from looking at sinners and less-than-saintly individuals, atheism does not give you any objective basis for any moral judgement. At most, you have no intellectual basis for your outrage, but merely emotional ones.
“X is wrong” why? In a godless world, it’s wrong only because you feel it is wrong, and not that there’s anything objectively wrong, independent from your opinion or any human opinion. What is wrong with a subjective understanding of morality? It lets anyone justify anything, from the shooting at Sandy Hook, to casual rape, to genocide, etc- you can use anything, from “natural” causes, such as evolutionary adaptations, to “might makes right”, to chance. Nor is there forgiveness or any reason to sublimate any sort of “suffering”- you become a stoic for the sake of convenience, then you live a life disingenuous about the truth or just repulsed by its harshness so to ignore it conveniently, until you die a pointless death.
The problem with emotional basis for outrage, though it may not involve God or any semblance of ultimate arbiter of moral values, is that emotions are easy to manipulate and unreliable in determining the Truth, which is the ultimate goal of any philosophical being. A separation between humans and animals is that human beings generate meaning, but can conceive of a source of meaning other than their own interpretation of their immediate environment. Animals, no matter how seemingly intelligent and even genetically similar to human beings, can never be truly aware of its own mortality nor will they try, other than what their nature allows them, to overcome this. Nor can animals hope. Animals don’t plan for the future, because death comes when it comes, and the only planning they have is their offspring and proliferation of genetic material.
Maybe things are the way they are in history because certain artificial attempts to justify human existence outside the necessity of the existence of God ended in making people think that they are nothing more than animals. No wonder people treat each other more and more like animals. This is a typical symptom of the disease of atheism. You do things because you want to do them, and no one can tell you to do otherwise. And this will build up until people start dying in large numbers and the remaining will wonder “Why? As if the answer hasn’t been given already, as if asking “why” repeatedly will change the answer. And then people will play judge and put God the Judge in trial. Goodness knows that’s what many atheists want, and what they want is an exercise in futility, as is their own godless lives.
A godless mind hiding behind emotionalism has to face the inconsistency of the “truths” emotions present with the intellectual facts that your mind has to necessarily accept if you accept that you are a rational individual with a sound mind. If you are not rational, or are insane, what would any meaning placed on emotion mean? Wouldn’t -any- meaning be futile, even if placed on emotion, if one is irrational or insane?
So, to sum things up, if you are a rational, sane individual, you must strive more than from the bare minimum of putting meaning into emotion; this is fine, but it is also narcissistic- we know for certain that minds exist outside our own- so how would you justify in thinking that your emotions are the only emotion in the universe and thus -can- be a valid metric from which other people can derive their own moral values system? Are you somehow more all-knowing than the rest of us that you can accurately determine the existence of God and the validity of other moral values? Are you yourself lacking in moral flaws as to stand in judgement over an apparently flawed world view and the ideal god they supposedly worship?
I would assume that you are less than a century old, and that you will probably not live to see a century, so from your limited experience, please tell us the basis in which atheism is in any way a valid and sane world view.
I’m 63, Ioannes, a retired consultant clinical psychologist who occasionally does a bit of work in research psychology and psychometrics to keep the gin store topped up. My work in clinical practice put me in touch with more disturbed individuals than I care to remember.
And I’m afraid that my point is apparently just beyond your grasp. Reach harder, but next time try to use fewer words.
It wasn’t so much trying to convince you of anything. Words are pointless ultimately. Just expressing how atheism doesn’t work. The point was, it doesn’t matter even if you live to be a thousand and smarter than the rest of us- God is Judge and Master of All. That was the point.
Having re-read your comment, Ioannes, it occurs to me that all you have done is to say “I couldn’t live a life devoid of meaning, so I’ll pretend it is different.” Humans are great at creating stories and narratives, especially when doing so helps them to avoid facing unpleasant facts. It doesn’t explain how “atheism doesn’t work”, it explains how “I don’t want atheism to work”.
I am a Christian, which is a miracle in and of itself given some of the things I have experienced. However, when I read Christians expressing their love for one another on blogs (I do not point fingers here, except at myself), I know that the only reason I am a Christian is through Grace.
We’re a big dysfunctional family. On Earth, at least. In Heaven, everyone’s happy.
It’s a miracle that I still consider myself a Christian as well. I frankly fear for my neighbor the day I declare I no longer believe in God.
There is no story in atheism. There’s only the world in its crude, nasty, brute brevity. (Considering if eternity exists, what is 17 billion years?)
Maybe even atheists and those who subscribe to scientism try to tell their stories conversely so that God doesn’t have to exist. They don’t believe in God and they hate Him. (Somehow linking misotheism with atheism)
I fear for your neighbour, too.
There is no story in atheism. There’s only the world in its crude, nasty, brute brevity.
Exactly! It is a void without purpose or meaning. A horrible, terrifying empty space. Can you see why people want to fill it up?
Misotheism is interesting. A chap I see at church occasionally became Orthodox 15 years ago or thereabouts, after decades of being an atheist. He said to me once that he had been “angry with God for not existing”. He was desperate for a reason to believe, and it took him a long time to find one. I won’t relate his story here because it isn’t mine, and it is too long in any case, but it is very moving. Suffice it to say that some of the “Christians” he encountered on his journey might have a lot of explaining to do some day.
I’ve not slept properly since my wife died (several years ago!) but 3am is pushing it even for me, so I think I’m going to turn the computer off now.
Yea, Stephen M, just think how nice they would be to you if you were unwilling to reject your own heritage and ask for the western rite in England…see how quickly they will reject you for loving your own heritage. Been there, done that.
Thankfully, there are many good and even great EO theolog’s and theologians. Note the EO does not give the title of “theologian” to just any one! They used to be involved in Ecumenical fellowship, years back, noting here both the likes of Florovsky with Barth, etc. But those days are gone for the most part now! Yes, we owe much to the EO in the West! And they owe something to the West also!
Agreed. Odd, that.
Yeah, those days are gone. They’ll never come back, and nothing will happen unless someone does something and isn’t afraid of offending someone.
We are at War with the World- someone HAS to be offended!
Indeed my world will always include, theologically, some from the history of Orthodoxy! Though I will always seek and maintain the Reformational and Reformed theology in general. I would recommend highly, Robert Letham’s book: Through Western Eyes, Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective. And also T.F. Torrance’s always theological ecumenical book, The Trinitarian Faith, The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church. Of course these are a Western look.
Fr. Robert, I think every Christian should spend some serious time worshipping with others outside his faith group. And seriously reflect and study the seminal documents of others. My Christian perspective has been enriched by worshipping with RCs, Anglicans, Lutherans, PNCCs, and Methodists.
I just finished reading Manschreck’s 1958 bio of Melanchthon (published by the Methodists, Abingdon Press, Nashville; don’t think American Lutherans have published a bio on him for over a century if not ever). Which led me to re-read the Augsburg Confession and his treatise “On the Power and Primacy of the Pope.” I’ve ordered a copy of his Loci Communes (Manschreck’s translation of the 1555 edition). I can’t say enough about Melanchthon’s deep study, willingness to evaluate everything, his peaceable nature, and personal piety. He is the Lutheran Augustine and Wesley! A truly brilliant fully Christian mind who focused, as he should, on Scripture, Gospel, and Christ.
One has to seriously and honestly engage the best and brightest of all faith groups.
Amen Michael! Good words, and with thoughtful thinking! On another blog, I have been suggesting that historical & theologically minded Christian people read Bruce Gordon’s bio: ‘Calvin’ (Yale University Press, 2009 / 20011 paperback). I have the hardback…and even a few paperbacks I give away to serious students!
Melanchthon has a good and certain place in the book and index!
Yes, Calvin and Bucer both interesting bios. Same for Cranmer, who also has had a couple really good ones over the past 20 years. Is there ever a shortage of Luther bios? Too bad John Wesley seems to get shortshrift from serious academic scholars. Same for all of Nonjurors! But you know me, way more Cassian, Melanchthonian, Arminian, Laudian, & Wesleyan over Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and Whitefield!
Yesterday I surfed web to find following bios: Anglican Nonjuror Archbishop of Canterbury Sancroft, RC Bishop Stephen Gardiner, RC Cardinal Cajetan, but sadly either none to be found or none at a reasonable price (UK used prices outrageous)!
Christians should spend time worshiping with other faith groups?
I live in Los Angeles. That’s like. Every other Mass.
I mean you can even worship with people WITHOUT faith. How’s that for Ecumenical?
How rewarding to read an exchange where everyone appears to read the others’ comments and respond thoughtfully, in both senses. Especially when the initial comments by Abp Muller regarding the Ordinariate strike me as fairly depressing, as one does not generally encourage people to ” be nice ” unless one has observed the opposite behaviour.
“Church of Nice” is something that is prevalent in the Roman Catholic Church and does not need a cardinal from the Vatican to make any approvals for it. On the other hand, maybe the “Church of Nice” is indeed a creation of such cardinals who but a while ago were archbishops with borderline heretical opinions.
Here is an interesting link to what the present Greek Archbishop of North America said about being Orthodox, which, for him, seems to be based upon having Greek DNA. I am sorry, but these people are not crackpots, but leaders of the Byzantine Church:
http://qctimes.com/news/local/archbishop-talks-about-dna-faith/article_a3fa9e52-d9ab-11df-8f8e-001cc4c03286.html
This is the same man who called the most pro-abortionist American President in history the ‘New Alexander.”
It is indeed strange that the Byzantines do and can produce good theologians, only so long as such theology remains academic, but putting it into practice? This is a denomination that is tied to a single cultural expression, yet still parades itself as the only, one, true Church. I think not. If any Church, outside of the Catholic Church can claim that title, it is the Oriental Orthodox, but most certainly not the ethnic cult of Byzantium.
Stephen M, I am sorry that you seem to think that this is simply because “Dale does not like the Orthodox Church.” But how can one take seriously such people?
Dale, you used to make me angry. I’m sorry about that.
The more you seek to defend your point of view, the more unhappy you look. It’s very sad.
I am not really defending anything, I have simply posted the opinions of the leaders of your denomination. Killing the messenger is truly, truly sad; but it does save one from having to actually deal with anything.
I don’t think he’s my pope, or that he speaks infallibly to all Orthodox, or that I have to leave my brains in the car when I go into church. I’ll double check all that.
My poor prayers.
Perhaps not your brains, but most certainly your ancient traditions and culture.
“Every bad boy, is really a sad boy.”
So goes a pop psychology maxim.
Not wholly true, Ioannes, but there is truth in that. The danger, as always, is turning a maxim into an immutable law.
Oh, and then there are people who think they’re being clever by thinking the converse is true:
“Every sad boy, is really a bad boy.”
Hence why there’s some stigma for not being a happy peppy cheerleader society wants everyone to be.
Stephen M, I’m glad you’re being so polite and kind to our angry, disputatious friends. I keep wondering why they would ever bring up anything to do with the psychology of man and our existence with you. Like bringing a butter knife to a gunfight? As you wrote, “I’m 63…a retired consultant clinical psychologist who occasionally does a bit of work in research psychology and psychometrics….”
You seem like a most interesting fellow, one we’d all be lucky to share some gin with! My daughter is studying psychology. She wants to do family and marriage counseling. (When I dabbled in it at college for a minor, Industrial Psychology, I was an overall fan of cognitive behaviorism. Fred Luthans, Univ. of NE, wrote one of the best works for me. Love classic behaviorism, by way of Watson and Skinner, as the foundation of modern research psychology. And I remember reading a huge, fascinating biography of Wilhelm Reich; he and his orgon accumulators made Freud look normal.
)
And finally Stephen M, why must you make all of this an ad hominem? I must admit that I have never been angry with you at all.
You deserve an answer to that. I’m not proud of my anger. You accused me, back on another blog, when I was first exploring Orthodoxy, of being filled with self-loathing and hating my own tradition.
That irked me. Still does, but I’ve grown through it.
I am sorry, but I do believe that forsaking one’s own, and ancient, ecclesiastical traditions is indeed a dreadful thing…but perhaps that is just me.
Wow, Dale- I thought you were Orthodox? (Oriental Orthodox?)
I do have a great respect for the Oriental Orthodox. They seem to have less blood on their hands, and they persevere. But they also seem to remain as an ancient motley crew of a rag-tag band of Christians.
And we Catholics are the evil Empire everyone loves to hate.
If the Catholic Church implodes from the influx of namby-pamby theologians and leaders, if I don’t go to the Eastern Orthodox, I might pull a Fr. Lazarus and go to Egypt to become a Coptic Monk. Live in a cave, and wait for God to take me.
It may be a more viable path than to raise a Papist army and make a new Crusade against everyone.
@Michael: One Luther bio I like very much was/is Walther von Loewenich’s: Martin Luther, The Man and His Work, (Augsburg,1982). Btw, I also have Von Loewenich’s classic, ‘Luther’s Theology Of The Cross’. A must read really!
Here is one nice quote from my man John Calvin: ‘Knowledge of the sciences is so much smoke apart from the heavenly science of Christ.’ Indeed Amen! Calvin is one of the giants of seeing Christ’s Ascension…always prophet, priest & king!
Fr. Robert, The Calvin quote is the spirit of the confessing magesterial Reformation. A lot like Melancththon’s ideas about the failure of medieval scholasticism and the medieval Church’s misplaced reliance on philosphy, logic, and reason. Real eternal truths were first to be found in Holy Scripture. John, Paul, etc. over Aristotle, Plato, etc. “If we turn our minds to the sources we will begin to understand Christ” and “Hence have originated those endless disputes respecting oferings, rewards, and cardinal virtues in which everything is attributed to human nature and nothing to Christ.”
Fr. Robert, But it is interesting how men like Calvin, Luther, and Melanchthon, as well as their RC counterparts were men of their times. So they studied astrology, sought Anti-christ everywhere, saw the Apocolypse at every turn, feared bad omens, had superstitions, disliked Jew and Turk, ran into demons on a daily basis, etc. They still were men of the 16th Century. Compare this sort of behavior to Wesley’s in the 18th Century.
What a time, that 16th Century, eh?
500 years later, and we are still reading and connected “theologically”! Btw, “antichrist” has always been everywhere! (1 John 4: 1-6)
Why wouldn’t you expect the End of the World at any time? The point of being alive and being Christian is to expect the Apocalypse to happen any moment from now until we die, wherein we pass to Eternity.
I still cannot understand this antipathy towards Aristotle and Plato; as one who have read their works, I could understand that these pagan philosophers have departed from the primitive and heathen understanding of a Cosmos ruled by a pantheon of arbitrary deities. Some of them were even accused of being atheists and corrupting forces for the youth. I would imagine that these people, among others who taught about how to live virtuous lives would probably have discussed and believed in Jesus Christ, had they been born at the right place and right time and met the right people, rather than, as with the case today, relying on hearsay and rumors about what those creepy Christians do with their weird and ridiculous rituals.
Yet you would portray Roman Catholics as a sort of a pseudo-Gnostic sect that worship Aeons and other Neoplatonic concepts rather than Jesus Christ. Not only is this a show of ignorance, but something bordering on libel and defamation for its (probable) mischaracterization of the role of pagan philosophers and their methods in the Roman Catholic Church. Or it’s all a giant expression of oikophobia wherein everything from the East is suddenly superior to the West- it’s not that different from the 60′s, when people thought Buddhism and Hinduism were “totally groovy and radical, man.” and thought Christianity and their parents were a bunch of squares.
Don’t behave as if your precious Orthodox theologians never relied on Thomistic methods either. Or what, are they heretics too? “The Orthodox never made a mistake, except those guys, who weren’t really Orthodox at all!” Or maybe it’s just sour grapes that during the 16th and 17th centuries Orthodox theology was and, judging from a recent sort of love affair with Protestant theology, still impotent and ineffectual. Hence all the saber-rattling and angry sentiments from Orthodox Russia, and dear old Mt. Athos.
I can’t believe I used to look up to the Orthodox theology. Thanks to their basically reactionary, anti-Romanism, I’ve grown to love and believe the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Dominicans, and the Jesuit fathers who combated Protestantism.
On a tangential note, I have come across a group of Jewish Catholics who have claimed that the Roman Catholic Church espouses a Hellenized form of Christianity (THANKS TO THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH MAKING ROMANS FEEL BAD ABOUT THEMSELVES), because of its popularity with the Gentiles as opposed to the Jews. I might be a bit inclined to believe them. Look at how the Orthodox historically viewed Roman Catholics:the first 1,000 years, we’re not “Greek enough.” (“Latin is a silly language for theology”) Now, we’re “Too Greek”. (“Stop using Greek philosophers in your theology”)
Ioannes, I’ve never said the Orthodox Church on earth is perfect. Our clergy and laity are sinners. But the Holy Ghost–not philosophy, logic, reason, or scholasticism–has preserved us from error.
Keep in mind that as Rome went off the rails, worrying about her political, military, monetary, and religious power during the Dark & Middle Ages, her theology kept moving away from the Gospel and Christ. Thus, the Reformation. Does any Christian need Aristotle or Plato to come to Christ? To know they are a sinner, who can’t save themself, and are in need of a savior? That Christ is God-Man. Their savior. The only savior. What does all the theology of Aquinas do for the average Christian layman? Does it equal their Baptism? Receiving the Eucharist? Is it more valuable than Holy Scripture? Christ’s great commission isn’t about scholastic theology or Greek philosophy. It is about the preaching and teaching the risen Lord and bringing people into a real, saving relationship with Him. But worrying about inovations and corrputions like purgatory, indulgences, vows, etc. moved hearts and minds away from Christ and the Gospel to Papacy and Church power over the individual.
Maybe Orthodoxy should thank the rise of Islam for keeping the Empire focused on surviving, rather than speculative theology?
Michael Frost:
You wrote: “I’ve never said the Orthodox Church on earth is perfect. Our clergy and laity are sinners.”
Yes, and so are our people as well. We need to make sense of it somehow, that we can be sinners and be good, that we can strive for perfection, but never be perfect; that we are on the Earth, but not of the Earth. If we are sinners, will we always be sinners? If we cease to be sinners by God’s Grace, will we always cease to be sinners while on Earth?
“But the Holy Ghost–not philosophy, logic, reason, or scholasticism–has preserved us from error.”
How are you certain? What makes you so sure that the Holy Ghost does not work through philosophy, logic, reason, and the scholastic mode of thought? Do you deny that the Holy Ghost -can- work independently of human thought? If not, then why can’t the Holy Ghost work through philosophy, logic, reason, and so forth? We never claimed that the Holy Ghost is dependent on philosophy, logic, or scholasticism. At the same time, we are more open to the notion that through the Holy Ghost’s independence, the Lord has worked throughout human history so that people can reach some semblance of salvation through philosophy and reason, because virtue is TAUGHT, not inborn in people. And the goodness that come from the virtues do not come from human beings, but from God. But let’s not make a hasty conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church, by declaring the Holy Ghost’s independence from human though, endorses indifferentism. On the contrary, the Church strives to do the work of our Lord in the work of salvation, and that includes understanding the nature of salvation, who is saved, and how they are saved. We cannot pretend that God only started to exist when Christianity started to exist, and so we must find a way other than the convenient excuse of “God did it!” to justify why we say that the Church, which Christ established, has the fulness of Truth and yet acknowledge that goodness exists beyond the Body of Christ, though such goodness is imperfect by not belonging to the Body of Christ. You simply can’t reach to such conclusions without philosophy, logic, reason, or scholasticism. What you have left is a sort of provincial, underdeveloped, and understandably ethnocentric/tribal theology.
“Keep in mind that as Rome went off the rails, worrying about her political, military, monetary, and religious power during the Dark & Middle Ages, her theology kept moving away from the Gospel and Christ.”
Oh, how are you certain? You served in the military, you probably work to earn a living- can’t you worry about those things and not be derailed in your theology? Maybe unless you are a monk, your own theology is derailed and has long past moved away from the Gospel and Christ. This is by your own statement, by the way. In my opinion, we must strive to bring Christ and the Gospel to Politics, to Military, to Money, and to Religion, then and now. That is why I am justified in bringing Rome back to politics, military, monetary and religious power.
“Thus, the Reformation.”
(You mean ‘Rebellion’- you can’t characterize it as anything but.)
“Does any Christian need Aristotle or Plato to come to Christ? To know they are a sinner, who can’t save themself, and are in need of a savior? That Christ is God-Man. Their savior. The only savior.”
A Christian needs Christ, and so does the rest of the world to be saved. But you cannot pretend that there wasn’t a time before Christ was born as a man, nor can you pretend that there are virtuous non-Christians. But we can agree that because they were imperfect in their methods to arrive at the Truth, it was necessary for Christ to be born- people can’t continue with their pagan philosophy and be saved. Why is it necessary to incorporate Aristotle or Plato? Those two philosophers have asked questions that people are still asking to this day, regardless of their religion- they have formed a part of the West’s heritage, and so it is necessary to address their questions by bringing Christ into that philosophical mode of thought, rather than seeing it as “corrupting the Church with pagan philosophy.” Maybe, the parallel growth of Christ-less, Godless philosophies that we saw in the Modern era has made you think that it was a mistake for Aquinas and Western Christian thinkers to have ever dabbled with Aristotle or Plato- but I have arrived at the conclusion that these parallel philosophies that could be traced to Aristotle or Plato were made godless because they could be linked to the Reformation and the rebellion against the Church. So, philosophy without the threat of the Church prohibiting errors ended up with the errors of Modernism.
“What does all the theology of Aquinas do for the average Christian layman? Does it equal their Baptism? Receiving the Eucharist? Is it more valuable than Holy Scripture?”
Well, the average person nowadays don’t even think about the truth, much less the Truth Incarnate, but here is how I see it- Aquinas is more or less a specialized language of theology, in the same manner that physicians refer to specialized language to refer to diseases, and so forth- of course, an average person, even an average Christian layman can’t easily understand specialized language of a special branch of human thought that deals with the relationship of the human to the divine. But here you go again, mischaracterizing what Catholics believe in the most dishonest manner possible- Aquinas merely explains Baptism and the Eucharist, which are all ultimately a Mystery, though he recognizes the necessity of the human intellect to try and make sense of these Mysteries, because- to quote Aquinas “With Clarification comes Glorification” which is to say, ignorance and obscurantism are not virtues that help in the glory of God. if you even bothered to read the Summa Theologica, you would know that Aquinas refers to Holy Scripture, and dogmatic theology without biblical theology is sterile.
“Christ’s great commission isn’t about scholastic theology or Greek philosophy. It is about the preaching and teaching the risen Lord and bringing people into a real, saving relationship with Him.”
How can you preach and teach, when you don’t make any sense? Will you preach in Japan to a people who cannot speak English or Latin? To a people whose only understanding of the divine is limited to pagan animism/pantheism or erroneous atheistic Buddhism? How will you then preach and teach, when you are devoid of reason, or logic, to a people who have made logic and reason a basis for their technological achievements to a point where they have fetishized such things? Will you go into the front line armed with only a vague notion of how to proceed, comprised of 90% wishful thinking? Logic, reason, and philosophy can help you forge your faith in God, so to attain some semblance of spiritual maturity and serve God well when He calls for you to do His Will. Otherwise, you will break, as is the case with so many Protestants in America and Europe.
“Worrying about inovations and corrputions like purgatory, indulgences, vows, etc. moved hearts and minds away from Christ and the Gospel to Papacy and Church power over the individual.”
It is a great error to believe that individual can save themselves without help from legitimate authority. It is a stone’s throw away from atheism, which asserts “You can be good without God.” How can you, without using the limited bare words of the Bible, even begin to dismantle that blasphemous statement? It’s a foregone conclusion that people who believe that the greatest thing is the individual (And not God) would subscribe to the notion that you can be good without God- so it also goes without saying that the Bible is easily dismissed as drivel- therefore, you’d need to speak in a language they can understand.
“Maybe Orthodoxy should thank the rise of Islam for keeping the Empire focused on surviving, rather than speculative theology?”
What an evil thing to say! Islam HAS brought nothing but evil, and is the cause of so much instability in the Middle East today. On the other hand, we’d need to accept that the Byzantines were also so corrupt and hypocritical that they contributed to their own downfall. (And then Orthodox people will blame 1204 on the West, and how it’s all the West’s fault, and how evil are all Westerners, forgetting the earlier Massacre of the Latins and their own in-fighting.) How else can an Empire descended from a people who conquered most of Europe be bested by a bunch of tent-dwelling, nomadic herdsmen from the East? I say it is Eastern arrogance and unwillingness to understand how stagnant they have become in so many respects. (I think you can still see that with many Islamic fundamentalist countries- they are so angry that the West basically owns most of the world, and people would prefer wearing t-shirts, jeans and miniskirts to thobes and abayas.)
Ioannes, Your comment about Japan is interesting. You need to stick to the real history. I lived in the Philippines for 2 years. Think when the Spanish brought colonization and RCisicm there. They forced them to worship in Latin. Kept the Bible away from them. Same for Jesuits in places like Paraguay. The people didn’t experience Christ in a way that was congruent with their language or culture.That isn’t real evangelism. That isn’t bringing the Gospel to people in way that truly helps them to come to Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Michael, you wrote: “You need to stick to the real history. I lived in the Philippines for 2 years.”
Strange thing, I’m a native born Filipino. Is this a case of a white person thinking he knows more about the Philippines and Filipinos than a Filipino who lived in the Philippines longer than him, who has Filipino relations and participated in Filipino customs and is intimate with the Filipino psyche? How patronizing and racist. Talk about “White Man’s Burden”, eh? Us Filipinos in our jungly-bungly trees. You’re out to rescue us from ourselves. The only help we need is from Christ, through His One True Church, which is Catholicism.
“Think when the Spanish brought colonization and RCisicm there. They forced them to worship in Latin. Kept the Bible away from them.”
Oh, and look at how things are over there, are they so happy and prosperous now that people there are only nominally Catholic and are only “catholic” when there are baptisms, funerals, or weddings? Abortions and contraceptives, are A-OK, because Benigno Aquino will save the Philippines- (You know, he sees the Filipino people as a problem, and that’s why the solution is to abort and contracept- because material prosperity must be attained at all cost- nevermind the fact that you can get killed in the Philippines a hundred different ways already. See, this is like how in Africa, white people think they can go in and say what’s best for Africans, and while there is a pretext of “helping the poor Africans” there’s an underlying contempt for them. That is how I see foreigners, not just white, mind you- you can see this sort of attitude from the Japanese Empire who thought they were liberating those inferior, non-Japanese Asiatic races.
Your understanding of the relationship between Filipinos, Spaniards, and Roman Catholicism is both shallow and insulting. I do not care if you have the best intentions, that’s what it is. And it is as personal as your attacks and hatred for Roman Catholicism.
The Philippines is a Roman Catholic country- don’t spread your filth there, I’ve had just about enough of godless foreigners who keep going into that country thinking they know what’s best for it, unsolicited- it stops with the Spaniards; they saved us from the abject poverty of tribal superstition, and it was a mistake to drive them out- even our National Hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, never intended for an Independent Philippines but petitioned that the Philippines be a part of the Spanish nation- Considering the sort of revolutions occurring at his time, and the liberal tendencies of the Filipino Illustrados, the execution of Dr. Jose Rizal was justified from a conservative point of view, but the notion that the Filipinos could govern themselves was a mistake- what has reigned since then is an unwarranted sense of liberty that will drive the nation morally bankrupt as it sheds off Roman Catholicism and embrace MARXISM. Foreigners have turned a nation of conservative Roman Catholics into slaves of a different kind. That of culture and economy. And the fact that you no longer obligate the Catholic Filipino to be Catholic has left an entire nation confused, especially in the diaspora- they make identities for themselves, turning their backs on their Catholic heritage, and embracing either a worship of their constructed identity, the FALSE religion of the protestants, some neo-paganist nonsense, some cult (Iglesia ni Kristo, etc.) or have left any sort of Faith altogether and have become a member of the godless. Shame on you! But we Filipinos must be responsible for ourselves as well. My vision of the future for the Philippines is: “Expel the Foreigner, Establish a Theocracy”. Because Filipino Democracy is corrupted to the core by the Filipino mentality of “give and take” as well as the traditional importance of family ties. Democracy has no place in the Philippines, and it is more befitting that a Monarchical Theocracy be in charge than the idolatry of minor celebrities and monopoly of the powers of Chinese oligarchs who own 90% of the Filipino economy.
“Same for Jesuits in places like Paraguay. The people didn’t experience Christ in a way that was congruent with their language or culture.That isn’t real evangelism. That isn’t bringing the Gospel to people in way that truly helps them to come to Christ as their Lord and Savior.”
You see, what you’re describing is your own subjective views of what having a Personal Relationship with Christ means- the fact that there is no authority to state what the Law is, which states the proper worship of God, or who the leader of the community of Christians is- that is either borderline Islamic in its outlook “There is nothing between a man and his God” or some sort of Christian anarchism.
Evangelism is linked with the teaching authority of the Church, which isn’t just the clergy, but with any confirmed Catholic who wishes to catechize and do battle with the enemies of God, part of which is ignorance and superstition, and ultimately any individualistic interpretation of God’s Truth.
Ioannis, it is indeed strange that you would state the following: “Don’t behave as if your precious Orthodox theologians never relied on Thomistic methods either. Or what, are they heretics too? “The Orthodox never made a mistake, except those guys, who weren’t really Orthodox at all!””
Because that is indeed just what they are saying! An example of this is St Peter Mohyla, who wrote his Orthodox catechism in 1640 using as its basis an interpretation of Thomistic scholastic theology. It was used in many Orthodox schools of theology until very recently; not to mention in Sunday schools as well. His feast day is celebrated on January 1st in most Russian/Ukrainian churches, yet now he is being disowned as a heretic! Talk about changing theological fashions!
The whole Priesthood of all Believers… “And He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father – to Him be glory and and the dominion forever and ever. Amen” (Rev. 1: 6, also Rom. 15: 6). This simply does not fit into the idea of a separate NT “priesthood”! The separation between clergy & laity, is simply NOT NT revelation! Note in 3 John, John writes as an “elder”, and “I wrote unto the Church (Assemby of Believers), but Diothephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, received us not.” (Verse 9) Here is historically the beginning of the clerical and priestly assumption over the churches in which the primitive church order disappeared! There is simply no biblical difference between “episkope”, “episkopos” (overseership-overseerer) and elder/elders (presbuteroi). “Mine the mighty ordination of the pieced hands”. (Hymn) Both God and the Church call the man of God. But there is no separate priesthood, but presbyters/elders.
Irishanglican:
Yes, yes, I understand that we are a nation of priests, a priestly people- But that is different from the sacramental priesthood, which we can see even in the times of St. Justin Martyr! That was only, what, less than 100 years since the crucifixion- I suggest a theory, and I am free to be corrected by anyone more knowledgeable than me on Church History, but the development of a theology explianing sacerdotal priesthood developed around the time of the destruction of the Temple- Since some Christians were also Jews, how is there any continuation in the community that Christ established with the Nation of Israel, God’s Chosen people? Simple, as Christ predicted, the Temple would be destroyed, and Christ is the New and Everlasting Covenant- everything that God gave the Jews is completed in Him, the total package, the Living Word, the Lamb of God, the High Priest, the New Covenant, and so forth-
So, the Apostles, remembering Our Lord’s command, to DO what transpired that Holy Thursday, (And not WRITE in memory of Him) did what we have done for 2,000 years- the Sacrifice of the Mass, eternal in nature, and a foretaste of Heaven.
Dale,
I suspect that what is behind this is something less godly- identity politics. It reminds me of the punishment God inflicted mankind for our hubris in trying to build the Tower of Babel:
And yet these Christians, both Orthodox and Catholics, mind you, seem to rejoice in things that make and keep us different- In the Orthodox, with their blatant ethnocentric churches, and the Catholics with pandering to the liberal “politically correct” crowd with ‘cultural masses’ and masses in the vernacular (within the Roman Rite.)
We are called again to be united, this time not by pride, but by Jesus Christ who prayed that we may be one. I hope we can rise up to that, but I fear that the more realistic result would be worse than the worst we can imagine. That’s just how we have behaved throughout history and even in front of Jesus Christ when He walked the Earth- foolishly.
@Ioannes: I don’t see any biblical distinction!
Because not everything is in the Bible, nor everything important is written in the Bible. There are people who think it’s alright to have female priests or bishops or that a homosexual lifestyle is alright, because it’s not in the Bible according to the parameters they themselves have imagined. Just because it’s not in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s not true of the Faith. Just because it’s not in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s not true of the Faith. Just because it’s not in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s not true of the Faith.
Why?
The Early Christians did not have the complete New Testament writings to follow but relied heavily on the Oral Tradition of the Apostles. For example, how do we know that the Gospel writers wrote accurately what happened so as to be a reliable guide on what to believe? Either someone told them through word of mouth, or they were all drawn from previous written accounts or plagiarized some mysterious single source that is now lost in history, and if someone wrote it to them, then where is this/are these proto/cryptoevangelium? It would seem more coherent that these matters were transmitted through Oral Tradition, as was done by the Hebrews prior to the compilation of the Tanakh for thousands of years. It is not a leap of imagination that a bunch of itinerant Jews would preach a consistent set of traditions without any heavy reliance on Holy Writ- for even Jesus wrote nothing that remains with us, but spoke so that what we have are third-hand accounts.
How do you know Jesus rose from the dead? Or that He was crucified? You weren’t there- and neither were His disciples, except for John with His Mother. How do you know He was born in Bethlehem to a woman named Mary? Plenty of people named Jesus were probably born to women named Mary- and how do you know, or even the Gospel writers know that the Holy Family went into Egypt? Someone told them. Oh, but the fact that someone told them wasn’t written down in the Bible- so that means it never happened, right? Or, a bunch of people knew something, and they passed it on through word of mouth because, like the Jews and their Law, it was important enough to worth memorizing and recollecting.
How do you account for the fact that Jesus Himself wrote nothing, and you maintain that what He supposedly said is true? By Faith? Oh, then why is it different when
Who do you think compiled the Canon of the Bible? Were they not Bishops, only a few generations of episcopal lineage from the 12 Apostles who then received what they had from Jesus? Or are we going to pretend that the Apostles were just literary characters to serve as a foil for Jesus rather than actual people? How is it that we have to rely on maybe a literal reading of the Bible, or the mentality that the Bible contains everything, when the reality is- if you’re a sane, intelligent person, Tradition has been a more reliable understanding of the faith than someone who claims to have everything “reformed” 1500 years after the fact?
I can still believe that Gospel Writers, or a bunch of illiterate fishermen from Rome’s backwoods got their information from second-hand sources. But it’s ridiculous when some angry German monk 1,500 years claims to fix everything.
*addendum:
How do you account for the fact that Jesus Himself wrote nothing, and you maintain that what He supposedly said is true? By Faith? Oh, then why is it different when people take by faith that what we have is handed through Apostolic Tradition? We have bishops, we have deacons, then it’s a problem when there’s a sacerdotal priesthood?
Also, we find the reason for the Evangelical fascination with Jews- it’s as if the Priesthood was never transferred from the Temple to the Church.
The original Covenant included God asking for a sacrifice of an animal, an appointed priesthood to offer it for, Atonement of sins. Over time, the Word of God on these matters were put to paper by oral history.
In Matthew 5:17. Christ said, “I did not come to abolish the law or the prophets but to fulfill them.” That means that Christ wanted to improve on the existing framework through a perfected covenant.
Christ first chose men for a new ministerial priesthood, teaching them over 3 years. He then told all what the new sacrifice would be, a perfect Lamb: Himself. He then sacrificed Himself for a perfect atonement of sin that allows men to enter Heaven. He chose bread and wine and said “This is my body/This is my blood.” Over time, Christ’s spoken teachings and that of his Apostles were put to paper.
Without the proper understanding of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, no wonder a sacerdotal priesthood makes no sense. The central crux, the hub of the entire thing is the Eucharist. You either believe it is what Jesus said it is, or our God is a liar who speaks of half-truths and does not truly love us, and that atheists are correct in their assessment of the Church being a giant 2,000-year-old scam.
Ioannes, When you start falsely calling people racists and bringing up skin color for discussing events that happened hundreds of years before our births, then you’re no longer discoursing as a Christian, but slandering as a fool. I notice that you don’t call yourself “racist” for discussing events in Italy, Germany, or England in the 16th Century, even though as a native-born Filipino you aren’t European. However, just as you can discuss the Middle Ages, Reformation, and Counter-Reformation, I can discuss Spanish imperialism/colonialism in Asia and S. America, along which came the RC Church. We’re talking about forcing people to worship in a foreign language (one not even used by any nation) and withholding the bible, Just look at what Scripture says about Scripture. Then ponder why a Church would deliberately keep Scripture from the people, and for the very few who were allowed to access Scripture, they had to read it from a Latin translation of the original languages! That is the history I’m talking about. A history you skip over. RC laymen didn’t start freely reading Scripture from the original languages until after the middle of the 20th Century; the Douay-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate was still the RC standard for English speakers until after WW II. And then you wonder why there was a Protestant Reformation? Or a Pentacostal wave of conversions in Central and South Amercia today?
Ioannes, All those things you discuss in early Christendom about their understanding of important beliefs like the Trinity, Incarnation, Virgin Birth, Dual Natures of Christ, etc. came thru the consensus of the Patristic Church, primarily as worked out in Councils. (Just read Acts about the Council of Jerusalem, where James, not Peter, presides.) They didn’t arise due to the papacy. The Emperor, not Bishop of Rome, called the Ecumenical Councils. The Bishop of Rome didn’t even attend. Yet all of these beliefs are fimly rooted in Scripture and no dogma can go against the clear warrant of Scripture. Luther and the Reformers were right to ascert that we Christians need the fimest foundation. Christ is our Head. But we rely on the Holy Scriptures to guide us and HIs Church. Which is why we read so voluminously from Scripture at our various services and liturgies. Where there is little or no Scripture, there is little or no Church. Thus the Medieval Church misuses philosophy, logic, and reason to create purgatory, indulgences, and the super-treasury of merit. But there is no clear Scriptural warrant nor clear Church consensus ascerting same throught the Church’s history. Same for papal infallibility and primacy. And the immaculate conception. Over dogmatization arises when theologians go outside of and beyond Scripture, where God has no desire for man to waste his time opining. All things can and should lead directly to Christ and his role as our Redeemer and Savior.
This discussion has gone too long, but one thing is for certain- I have grown more hateful of Protestantism and everything associated with it even more after this. I certainly can write against this error, and there will always be some argument that will be used, even if I say, for example, that Protestants use the Latin translation of the Scripture for their own translations, and that their own translations are inaccurate. But nope. Somehow, individual translation of the Bible is superior. And somehow, the rise of incoherent theologies of evangelicals is a good thing. If this is unstoppable, then an argument for the non-existence of God will naturally take hold.
This is like arguing with atheism once again- I just cannot win with deluded people. Certainly, I am more and more convinced that atheism makes more sense in comparison to Protestantism.
Many anti-Catholics accuse the Church of having hidden Scripture from the faithful by refusing to translate it into the vernacular tongue.
The Douay-Rheims provides a particularly telling counterexample. It was completed in 1609, making it older than the KJV, which was not published until 1611. The fact that the Rheims New Testament was published in 1582 meant that it appeared almost thirty years before the KJV New Testament.
But nevermind this- anti-Catholicism runs so deep with some people, it just doesn’t matter anymore.
Ioannes, You really need to study the Council of Trent and the 16th Century regarding RC ideas, beliefs, practices, and decisions regarding Holy Scripture. The Douay-Rheims is NOT translated from the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek). It is an English version of the Latin Vulgate. You really should read Piux XII’s 9/30/43 encylical (Divino afflante Spiritu) which finally allowed translations based directly on the original texts. In America, the RC Bishops dinked around and didn’t create their own RC New American Bible until about 1970. And for a while, portions of that were translated from the Latin Vulgate. Prior to it, the RC edition of the RSV came out and it is still probably “the best” RC translation of the bible into English from the original languages.
So it took Rome over 400 years after Luther and the Reformation before she finally allowed her own members to really read the bible! It was a serious error to prohbit reading the bible unless it was translated from the Latin Vulgate. And it took longer than that to finally allow the liturgy to be done in the language of the people, another object of the Reformation! I think we can all agree today that there was not then nor is there now nor ever in future an Godly need to prohibit the faithful from reading all of Holy Scripture in the original languages and worshipping in their native tongue.
So for hundreds of years after the Spanish brought RCicism to the Philippines, the average Filipino could neither read the bible in his language nor hear the liturgy in his own tongue. He likely didn’t read Holy Scripture at all! And he had to suffer thru Latin bible and liturgy, if at all, or otherwise just use the vernacular devotionals that so many had been using for 1,000 years and be ignorant of the Gospel and a mere ignorant observer of the “magic” that was done in the liturgy.
Vernacular worship fosters division and is the reason why the sort of “Christianity” in one part of the world differs from another part. Do you deny that Japanese Christianity is the same as Christianity in the Philippines or in the ancient communities in the Middle East? No, these people each have their own traditions, and historical understanding of Scripture- but if you look closely at the example of a group of Japanese Christians who subsisted without Holy Scripture or even an interpreter for such things, you end up with crypto-Christians who have strange practices that deviated long ago from Roman Catholicism- in your modernist world view where everyone is entitled to have their own interpretation and translation of the Bible, these Crypto-Christians have a right to reject your own interpretation and propagate their own, as much as the “Queen James Bible” becomes a valid version of the Bible, or the so-called “Cockney Bible” or even the “Lolcat Bible”- that is the logical and unsurprising conclusion of the Protestant mindset which allows the “vernacular” that recklessly assumes the proper understanding of Scripture at the hands of laypeople. It becomes a sort of cruel joke at the expense of evangelization and the Christian Faith.
A people united under one God ought to strive to have uniformity in what they believe and how they worship God- it is simply the reality that, for example, Tagalog has words that have no translation in English, Latin, Greek, or Aramaic, and those languages have words that have no translation into Tagalog. The fact of the matter is, loanwords are constantly used by that language to the effect that the words is corrupted due to a folk etymology or usage that deviates from its original meaning. Tagalog does it with both Spanish, Chinese, and English; English does it with all sorts of language. And so, the Bible, when translated into the “Indigenous language” it is inevitable that translations from the Hebrew and Greek would be twisted and molded to bow to that culture’s sensibilities at the expense of the original intention. Greek has some four words for “love”, while these all become translated, if you seriously translate it into vulgar language of Tagalog, into a single word that could mean anything from friendship to erotic love. Naturally, this will bring confusion, much less uniformity. This is the reason why education of the clergy relies on older, more developed languages rather than the native language. For example, there is no easy and simple translation for “Transubstantiation” or even “μετάνοια” that doesn’t sacrifice some aspect of the word so that the cultural understanding is retained.
I say, sacrifice the individual, separate identity, for the sake of oneness with Christ, if that identity is an obstacle.
“the average Filipino could neither read the bible in his language nor hear the liturgy in his own tongue. He likely didn’t read Holy Scripture at all! And he had to suffer thru Latin bible and liturgy, if at all, or otherwise just use the vernacular devotionals that so many had been using for 1,000 years and be ignorant of the Gospel and a mere ignorant observer of the
“magic” that was done in the liturgy.”
You insult the Sacrifice of the Mass! I cannot tolerate such a thing! It fosters hatred for the local evangelical groups in Los Angeles- is it a Christian thing? It’s a Christian thing to show mercy and to tolerate them, yet your godless statement and accusation is a vile, anti-Catholic defamation, and I will oppose it- if not by words, then by force of arms.
It’s not like Filipinos really take to heart what they hear and have all become saints because the Mass is in English or Tagalog, or that they read the Bible in English or Tagalog- their children are more likely to get out of the faith, because if you take away the Roman Catholic nature of the Filipino, you rid the people of the only sort of constancy in their history and culture- and for what? Even more confusion! Recently, the Filipino government supported a law that will make it mandatory for schools to teach sex education at the elementary level and to make condoms available to minors despite the vehement opposition of the Catholic bishops and other faithful Catholics- yet in Los Angeles, parishes with a majority Filipino congregation will have members expressing their support for this bill! What made this sort of change, if not the Protestantization and liberalization of the Catholic Churches, starting from the introduction of the vernacular in a widespread and liberal manner!
But the truth is, even now, Filipinos have an excuse to do as they please because they can make their own interpretations on the Bible- this is what I see with evangelical Protestants, which is why opinions on, say, homosexuality and contraception, vary from denomination to denomination. It is the Filipino mentality to disobey the law- this has been true with the Spanish, the Americans, the Japanese, and even their own governments. Perhaps that is the case with the Roman Catholic Church, nowadays. That’s just how it is. And Protestantism, which is basically a rebellion, portrays Christianity in a rebellious manner being justified. You would ruin the last authority in those lands and for what? More anarchy!
Even more dangerous is the Christian who reads Holy Scripture and feels he personally has a valid interpretation of Scripture- which is how you get people like those Westboro Baptist lunatics, David Koresh, and many more- usually stemming from Protestant denominations- yes, Catholics themselves have disagreements, for example between Jesuits and Dominicans- but they all have the tent of the Papacy so to act as “umpire” in any debates between two different theological views. You simply don’t have that authority in Protestantism, because “The Bible is the final authority” which just makes it impossible to make sense of Protestantism at all. And don’t tell me to “Read so and so, and it will make sense” because I’ve already stated my staunch opposition to Protestantism.
It’s as Flannery O’Connor said: It’s easy to love the Protestant but not the Atheist, yet it is easy to understand the Atheist than the Protestant. At least with atheism, it’s clear that they don’t believe in God regardless of their reasons. With Protestantism, I don’t even know why I should follow what anyone says just because they claim to read and know the Bible; if you have as much authority as the next person, then why should I be dependent on you and not start my own church? If all of us are the same in terms of Holiness and Authority, why can’t I start writing a Gospel and put anything I want? It’s going to be synoptic, and I’d probably get rich with that sort of scam, so long as I tell people what they want to hear what “Jesus said”. It sounds like a nice and easy way to go to Heaven, but it certainly does not sound like Jesus Christ.
Ioannes, Vernacular worship and the vernacular bible is the Gospel to the people. Which is why even Rome couldn’t prevent it forever.
I’m NOT talking about the RCC in 2012. We both know it is nothing like what it was in 1912 or 1512. So many of the “abuses” are pretty much gone, forgotten, or deliberately hidden. So who worries about relics and pilgrimmages? Purgatory and indulgences are hidden. The people can read the entire bible in the oringinal languages. The liturgy is in the vernacular. Communion is in both kinds. Priests (in some rites and circumstances) can be married. So in many ways the Reformation ended up beating the Counter-Reformation.
I’m talking about the life of the average illiterate RC layman in say 1412-1712. Whether in Spain or Philippines or Brazil. That person did not read at all. They did not write at all. They did not speak, read or write Latin. It was a completely foreign tongue. They sat in the pews reading devotionals with little to no idea what was going on. And they were told about eating Jesus in communion. So to the average layman back then it was “magic”. Thus we see in Mexico how Our Lady of Quadalupe becomes so critical to the average Mexican peasant (even to this day). He can understand the image of a woman; that is part of their pagan worship and rituals. She seems real and alive. And something to be…paid important attention towards. But does she really lead that peasant to Christ? When they can’t understand the Gospel?
Michael, you wrote: 1. “Vernacular worship and the vernacular bible is the Gospel to the people. Which is why even Rome couldn’t prevent it forever.”
Sad to say, it is a part of a liberalization of things that are the tendency through generations- because of Vernacular worship, people have blurred the line between the sacred and the mundane- what is left is the profane, when we are robbed of the treasures of tradition. Which is why I support the Latin Mass, though in the past, I did not know anything about it- And I will always support the Latin Mass, and the Latin language because it is a part of our heritage as Roman Catholics- I am a Catholic first before anything- but if Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, then I confess that the Latin language be bound to the Catholic faith as its servant.
2. “I’m NOT talking about the RCC in 2012. We both know it is nothing like what it was in 1912 or 1512. So many of the “abuses” are pretty much gone, forgotten, or deliberately hidden. So who worries about relics and pilgrimages? Purgatory and indulgences are hidden. The people can read the entire bible in the original languages. The liturgy is in the vernacular. Communion is in both kinds. Priests (in some rites and circumstances) can be married. So in many ways the Reformation ended up beating the Counter-Reformation.”
But we can’t be stuck in the Reformation/Counter-Reformation eras- the Reformation is a revolutionary movement towards supposed excesses of the Papacy- yes, I can attest to the personal corruption of -some- popes, but the fact that Protestantism continues to exist is a bit like Satan, the Adversary, continuing to exist and by its very raison d’être be against the notion of a Catholic Church with its headquarters in Rome- It’s stuck in the 16th century and its development has arrested because it has no more relevance to the modern era anymore than the Amish or Old Believers have; the counter-Reformation is then a reactionary movement of the establishment, which is the Church, but the radical Protestantism of Luther and Clavin subsided once the Church properly addressed the issues Luther previously complained about- What exactly do Protestants want from the Church now, other than its complete destruction? May I remind you, that more atheists are coming from “Staunchly Protestant” areas in Northern Europe- but to be fair, it took 3 generations of Catholics to be corrupted by liberalized and watered down Catechism- and of the Catholic identity. What is left when the sacred and the mundane are not differentiated? The profane. Our current “zeitgeist”.
3. “I’m talking about the life of the average illiterate RC layman in say 1412-1712. Whether in Spain or Philippines or Brazil. That person did not read at all. They did not write at all. They did not speak, read or write Latin. It was a completely foreign tongue. They sat in the pews reading devotionals with little to no idea what was going on. And they were told about eating Jesus in communion. So to the average layman back then it was “magic”. Thus we see in Mexico how Our Lady of Guadalupe becomes so critical to the average Mexican peasant (even to this day). He can understand the image of a woman; that is part of their pagan worship and rituals. She seems real and alive. And something to be…paid important attention towards. But does she really lead that peasant to Christ? When they can’t understand the Gospel?”
Now, I assume that you have a mother. If not, then Mary is your Mother, as she is the Mother to us all that Christ entrusted to us at the foot of the Cross; The feminine existence in religion is important, but not so much that we ourselves are feminized or that we misunderstand her to be equal to God- but what sort of child does not regard his mother to be almost godlike- providential, unconditionally loving, patient, kind… And yet we understand that the Lord chose her and blessed her among women to be the Mother of God- and so we must accept that Jesus Christ and His Apostles looked at her with the same sort of respect a good Jewish man has for his mother- (As it was in the commandment- honor thy father and mother). A member of the Church who fails to catechize the ignorant is DERELICT OF DUTY; and do you even take into account how in truth, the Mexican government is anticlerical and forbids the Roman Catholic Church to express Her faith in the public arena? That millions of peasants are discredited not only by atheistic Marxists, communists, and anarchists- but by fellow “Christians” who tell them that the Mother of God is satanic, and all the sort of typical strawmen you can read from your typical Chick Cartoon Tracts. (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1077/1077_01.asp)
But see, the fact that here exists a foreign tongue- and even a foreign idea (Do you know how foreign the concept of a single sacrifice to a single God who walked the Earth across the seas thousands of years ago sounds to a polytheistic Aztec who literally believed you must sacrifice a man everyday or the sun will not rise? You might as well try and tell that person that men went to the moon.) and there is no difference- it is foreign. Read Shusaku Endo, a Japanese Catholic who was disillusioned by European Catholics. I was, and still feel foreign to the United States. The sort of obsession with independence, the secularism, the utter disrespect for their elders (Although irishanglican knows I have no trouble with that) and even the language- all foreign. So you can teach these people Latin, or you can banalize Jesus and Sacred Tradition for these people to understand what you’re trying to say- but do you really think any human effort can truly pierce the hearts of men the way you think translating the Holy Writ will? I can acknowledge the evangelical Christians in Los Angeles exist, but I don’t care if they’re growing or not- what I know from hearing them preach, is that their emotionalism and subjectivity has caused their children to scoff at their arbitrary interpretation and over-quoting of Scripture. To those children who will grow up, guess what sort of lifestyle feels better when feeling better is the basis of one’s religion? Atheism. No Bible, no God, no Judge, no Heaven, no punishment, and you can enjoy your life even if others tell you it’s wrong to do things the way you want them to be done, because you’ll be food for worms anyway in less than 100 years.
“So in many ways the Reformation ended up beating the Counter-Reformation.” Amen! I don’t see how any honest thinking theolog would not agree! And the Reformation is about the principle of biblical renewal, and always so in the Church! This is the ‘Ecclesia semper reformada’ – always reforming nature, “in spirit and truth”!
Ioannes, When you wrote, “Yet you would portray Roman Catholics as a sort of a pseudo-Gnostic sect that worship Aeons and other Neoplatonic concepts rather than Jesus Christ. Not only is this a show of ignorance, but something bordering on libel and defamation for its (probable) mischaracterization of the role of pagan philosophers and their methods in the Roman Catholic Church”, you’re missing the point. We’re talking about what the RCC taught, teaches, and how it impacts the people. It is this that led to the Reformation.
Before the Reformation, it wasn’t Gnosticism so much as practical “magic” and raw power. Don’t forget the Mass was in a foreign tongue. As was the Bible. And most peasants were illiterate. They had no real idea about the Eucharist or scripture, because the Church didn’t want them “polluted” with anything that didn’t lead to Rome and the Papacy. So they knew about the “magic” of things like transubstantiation and indulgences, in their simple ways and ways of thinking. You should read Duffy’s The Stripping of the Altars. He’s RC and the book is pro-RC. Thesis is that the English Reformation wasn’t popular with the people. But read his description of what the people believed. Their daily lives were all about earning their way to heaven. First, they worked to get into purgatory. And then they worked to help others get out of purgatory in the hopes that others would then work to get them out of purgatory. The belief system was all about getting indulgences from the Church and its direct control of the super-treasury of merit. Buying them. Earning them. Which is why relics were so important. And pilgrimmages. Etc. (Notice how all of that has all but disappeared today!)
But it wasn’t about knowing Christ, the Gospel, or having a relationship with your savior. Who needed Jesus when the pope controlled purgatory, indulgences, and the confesional? The pope, not Christ, had the keys to Heaven, and he had the ultimate say in all things. Not even Jesus could stop an all-powerful pope!
Which is why you should read things like the Augsburg Confession and Apology for same. Read what the real issues were. What your RCC was actually teaching. If you read Melanchthon’s On the Power and Primacy of the Pope today you’re sickenend by al the discussion about political, monetary, military, and the plethora of non-religious power of the papacy. We can’t recognize the complaints because the power was swept away, but that wasn’t has it was in 1495! And it had been like that for 700 years? 1000?
Never forget that how you act today as a RCC is entirely different than it was in 1950. And 1950 entirely different than 1450. That is the story. Fortunately, you’re slowly moving back towward a real focus on Christ and the Gospel. But purgatory, indulgences, etc. are still all in the official RC CCC. You just make sure to hide it from the average Joe and Jane!
Indeed the RCC has backed itself into a theological & biblical corner, and it simply cannot possiblily get out, especially since Vatican II! But they do preach Nicaea to Chalcedon, but as you say very imperfectly, as the Church is always a Pilgrim Body. I can say in God’s providence that being raised Irish Roman Catholic, was somehow God’s blessings for me, I had some good people along that way! But, I am now with the Reformational & Reformed, Luther to Calvin, etc. We cannot forget too, that both these great Reformers were once Roman Catholic!
‘For by His Word, God rendered faith unambiguous forever, a faith that should be superior to all opinion.’ ( Calvin, Inst. I, vi, 2)
Fr. Robert, And since RCs were once Orthodox, Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, Calvin, Cranmer, etc. have that as part of their heritage.
Yes, the great dogmatic work of of the Nicene “homoousios” comes from Eastern ground! And here the Father is the regal, the origin of the Godhead, from whom the Son is begotten eternally and also from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally, John 15: 26!
Oh my typo’s, just one *of! Btw, a question for our R. Catholic friend, by why does the Reformation theology still proceed? And why do people still read Calvin? It should be noted too, that some Roman Catholic theologians are reading and working on Calvin’s Theology also! Note the work and thought of “Union” with and in Christ! Though not a Catholic, but see J. Todd Billings last few books: Calvin, Participation, and the Gift, The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ, (2007), and his: Union with Christ, Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church, 2011.