A Triumph for Traditionalists
Elevated to the papacy at 78, Benedict XVI will take no action greater in significance for the Catholic Church than his motu proprio declaring that the Latin Mass must be said in every diocese—on the request of the faithful. Dissenting bishops must comply.
"What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us, too," said the Holy Father in his apostolic letter, as he authorized the universal use of the sole official version of the mass allowed in the four centuries between the Council of Trent and Vatican II.
To which many Catholics will respond: "Alleluia! Alleluia!"
And so the pope has come full circle. At Vatican II, the future Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Holy Office for the Defense of the Faith under John Paul II, went about in coat and tie and was seen as a radical reformer and modernist theologian in the mold of his friend Hans Kung.
Now, Kung is silent, Ratzinger is pope, and the Latin Mass, which had fallen into disuse with the introduction of the new rite in 1970, is back.
Why? Because the Holy Father knows the solemnity, mystery and beauty of the Latin Mass hold magnetic appeal, not only for the older faithful but the searching young. And he acted to advance a reconciliation with traditionalists out of communion with the Holy See, including the 600,000 followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, excommunicated in 1988, who belong to his Society of Saint Pius X.
The current head of SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has welcomed papal restoration of the Latin Mass. But he has called it a first step toward addressing all doctrinal disputes dating to Vatican II. Among these are the issues of ecumenism and religious liberty. If the true church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic, then not all churches are equal.
Ever since Pope John Paul II issued his 1988 indult, which authorized, but did not require, bishops to allow the Latin Mass, the number of Catholics requesting the Tridentine rite—and the number attending—has steadily grown. Indeed, it was the stubborn resistance of some bishops to allow the Latin Mass to be said that brought a rising chorus of pleas to Rome from the faithful for the pope to overrule a recalcitrant hierarchy and order them to permit the old mass.
And there are other reasons Benedict XVI acted.
The introduction of the new mass has been attended by a raft of liturgical innovations by freelancing priests that are transparently heretical. And the years since Vatican II and the introduction of the new mass have been marked by a crisis of faith in Europe and the United States.
Churches have closed. Faithful have fallen away, or converted to other faiths. Congregations have dwindled. Convents have emptied out. Vocations are a fraction of what they once were. Belief in the creedal truths of Catholicism is not what it was in the years before Vatican II—the halcyon days of the great pope and future St. Pius XII.
One cannot know the effect of Pope Benedict's decision. But the ferocity with which it was fought suggests some bishops are aware of the power of the old Latin Mass and the appeal of its mystery and solemnity to the young.
Pope Benedict, raised Catholic in Nazi Germany, once a reformer, but shaken by the events of 1968 and the social, cultural and moral revolution that followed, seems to have concluded that the Catholic Church's apertura a sinistra, its opening to the left, has run its course theologically, liturgically and morally, and failed. Restored tradition can do no harm, and may offer hope for the revival of a faith that is in its deepest crisis since the Reformation.
Indeed, the term "Tridentine Mass" is derived from the Latin name, Tridentum, of the city in which it was declared the official mass of Roman Catholicism. And the Council of Trent was the first major step in the Counter-Reformation.
Yet the Holy Father could not make everyone happy.
Liberal European bishops were said to have fought restoration of the Latin Mass. And, according to the New York Times, Abe Foxman, resident theologian at the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, is about to anathematize the whole lot of us. Declared Abe, speaking ex cathedra for ADL:
We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday Mass, that it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jews to be converted.
What is Abe talking about?
Does he not know that Catholics are required to pray for the conversion of all peoples to Catholicism and Christ? Who duped Abe into thinking this requirement was suspended by Vatican II?
Indeed, if one believes, as devout Catholics do, that Christ and his Church hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, it would be anti-Semitic not to pray for the conversation of the Jews. Even Abe.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
There's an interesting amalgam of Catholicism and Fundamentalism on catholicfundamentalism.com
It's based on the theory that God can program in three dimensions. He programs particles. Angels (sub-programmers) compile particles into structures and beings that move through time.
Once one considers this, the possibility of a 10,000 year old creation makes more sense than the popular alternatives. After all, why would God waste time?
Free book, 'New Road to Rome' downloadable for free.
Red,
I think you've got me confused with E.A. I'm the Roman Catholic = Truth, Protestant denominations = truthiness guy. And that was intended as humor, but not a joke. I'm Viva Il Papa all the way.
Mr. Peters,
Thank you for your thoughful response. But as Red points-out we've done the Reformation many times before. So, let's just leave it at that.
Chris, et. al. Be assured the RCC does not wholesale lump Baptists with Buddhists. The RCC considers Baptists and the vast majority of other Protestant denominations Christians, and there is a deep and significant fellowship therein. Such fellowship is much more limited with Buddhists or other non-Christians.
For those RCC folk who have said they would not pray with you, I ask them to clarify a bit what they mean by "refusing to pray with you".
Mr. Peters, the Holy Father has said nothing new in Dominus Iesu or in the "4 volumes" released this last week. There has been no change in the relation between Catholics and Protestants from last month to this month. The traditions have existed apart for long enough that there is a big difference in what fairly common terms mean between the two traditions.
To really understand the differentiations the Holy Father is discussing you have to understand what the RCC means by being baptized, being "Christian", being "Church", being "saved", attaining "salvation". They are all very different things in the RCC where they are all pretty synonymous to most modern American protestants. Mind you, most modern American Catholics would have less of a clue what I'm talking about than you would.
I relish the discourse of Chronicles readers more than any other inorganic media. But in the half a dozen times I've watched discourse among Chronicles readers between the Christian faiths I've found it well below par. The pressure points of each other's arguments are usually missed entirely. As a result, little persuasion, potency, or edification is to be found, and that is disappointing.
Bill Jenkins,
I was thinking back to other threads. Maybe the primitivist is Wilder?
Greetings, Mr. Phillips:
My point wasn't to lump Baptists and Buddhists. My point, made in shorthand, was that liberal indifferentism (that all Christian churches are equally valid) leads to absolute indifferentism (that all religions are equally valid). Once you accept the first, you're on shaky ground in rejecting the the second.
Once you accept the idea that any man can interpret the Bible any way he wants (private interpretation), and that no institution is the one, central authority for Christianity (sola scriptura, sola fide), it's a short step to eliminate Christ altogether. After that, Buddishm or any other religion is acceptable. And after that, no religion at all.
I did get an ironic e-mail from a fellow Catholic about the Holy Father's statement: "How can it be controversial for the Pope to declare what [Catholics] assert every Sunday: [credo] et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam."
ECHS1967
This night your salvation is prayed for as well as that of all men.
As to Holy Writ, we would retort that were it not for the fact that the Ontological Absolute wrote Himself into history in the person of the Christ and through Him in His passion, death, resurrection and ascension become our Kinsman Redeemer there would have been no portion of the Bible called the New Testament and had there been it and its antecedent the Old Testament would have been without meaning unto salvation and matters eternal.
Without the Christ in this capacity, there would have not been the advent of the Holy Spirit to bear Him witness as He, the Christ bears witness of the Father. Without the Holy Spirit, there would have been no Witness in power and authority to the nascent Church. In His Witness through the Apostles, the Holy Spirit provided the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Revelation which circulated through the churches of the late first, the second and third centuries.
The very consideration and acts of the Nicene fathers is predicated on the understanding that they were focused on the living Christ, that they were submissive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that they had read and were influenced by the very texts which they would collate into the cannon. Christ, the Holy Spirit and the texts under consideration predated the council and influenced their decisions if they were indeed in the will of God. To say, therefore, that the council produced the Bible borders, in my understanding, a tad on blasphemy since without the will of Christ, the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the witness of the very texts which they were considering there would have been no council.
Mr. Jenkins,
Your words,
"Thank you for your thoughful response. But as Red points-out we’ve done the Reformation many times before. So, let’s just leave it at that."
I responded to your post. If the door to the Reformation was opened, it was not I. ;0)
Mr. Smith,
Your words:
"Mr. Peters, the Holy Father has said nothing new in Dominus Iesu or in the “4 volumes” released this last week. There has been no change in the relation between Catholics and Protestants from last month to this month. The traditions have existed apart for long enough that there is a big difference in what fairly common terms mean between the two traditions."
Thank you. Sometimes the thread is lost in a complicated weave. I was responding to something which Mr. Buchanan wrote and not something that the Holy Father had written. And, thereunto, I asked an open question, not knowing what the response would be.
I'm afraid, Mr. Peters, you made the point ECHS 1967 made: i.e., you admit the Church "collated the canon."
In other words, the Bible came from the Church. The Church did not come from the Bible.
Mr. Peters,
We really should let this go, but I think we've been missing the real point, here. Your original question in response to Pat Buchanan was: Can we still talk and pray together?
Certainly, we can pray the Our Father together. Can we pray the Rosary, together?
Bill,
Evangelicals do not pray the Rosary.
Even 'Our Father In Heaven' is meant only as a guide as to what prayer consists of.
We just pray.
Chris,
I know that Evangelicals DO NOT pray the Rosary. But, WOULD you, as an Evangelical, pray the Rosary?
As a Roman Catholic, I would and do "just pray".
Bill,
Of course I wouldn't pray the Rosary. I have no need for it and there idolatrous elements to it. Some parts of the Rosary are OK of course.
Chris,
Okay. Thank you.
What parts "are OK," and what part are "idolatrous?"
Gentlemen,
The last few posts are illustrative to the points I've tried (and probably failed) to elucidate here and elsewhere on this blog.
The fact that Evangelicals, et al., view the Rosary to contain 'idolatrous' elements should speak volumes about how far removed the Protestant confessions - both high and low - are from Tradition. It is more than a shame, truly, that elevating the Mother of God to a position of honor which Christ Himself acknowledged and admonished us to follow ("Son, there is your Mother...") is considered 'idolatrous'. Absurd.
Chris,
With all due respect, I humbly ask you to open your heart/change your heart (metanoia) on this topic. You, me, everyone needs Mary, the most important fully-human person who ever lived. Through her we come to know Christ, and through her intercession, we can be sure of sweet advocacy for our petition.
As I have stated elsewhere in this blog space, my mother's remaining family in the old country are all Church of Ireland, and I have witnessed many times on a lifetime's worth of summer vacations the last redoubt of the Reformation and its wars up close.
I am, therefore, no stranger to Protestantism or its theology, problematic as it may be. And, as I love my family with all my heart, I wish no ill-will toward anyone who is of Protestant faith (Mr. Peters, I beg your pardon on this score; my last blog - on second read - was rather sharply worded and angst-ridden. It was composed in the small hours, so please forgive it). What concerns me, not only as a Roman Catholic but as a strong advocate of our civilization and lover of history, is the core ideas informing Protestantism in all its guises. To wit:
1. A complete repudiation of, at the very least, the first 1500 years of Christianity.
2. Per no. 1, a repudiation of Authority.
3. 'Sola scriptura' and problematic theology of justification.
4. A total rejection of the Nicene Creed (communion of saints, forgiveness of sins).
How does a Protestant church, much less a Protestant believer, reconcile what Holy Scripture says (verbatim) with what it means? In other words, on what authority are the Holy Scriptures interpreted?
Quite frankly, there is no authority for such within Protestantism. The fact that the Bible was collated by Catholic Councils and interpreted by the Fathers seems lost on them, or at the very least an 'inconvenient truth'. So, it is therefore perfectly meet and just to have the Catholic Church supply the Scripture and most of its interpretation, it's just not acceptable to follow the RCC any longer.
Luther - wherever he might be - is surely beside himself given the fact that so many adherents of his nowadays have completely dispensed with the Mother of God. Luther, despite his tortured soul and ill-advised path of reform, always loved the Blessed Mother and believed wholeheartedly in venerating her.
I am constantly amazed by the erudition of this magazine and the contributors on this blog. You are all extremely intelligent and, I believe, sincere and genuine in your faith. I ask our Protestant friends to open their hearts, read the extant documents of the early Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, the Lives of the Saints, and - if nothing else - the recent Cathechism of the Catholic Church and its companion editions. EWTN has numerous wonderful programs of historical and theological concern that you will enjoy and will edify you.
I pray incessantly for a reunion. Open your hearts, and may the Peace of Christ always dwell therein.
One final thought regarding one of the most controversial and inflammatory doctrines of Catholicism, papal infallibility:
Think of it not as some sort of deification of a given man - Karol Wojtyla, Josef Ratzinger - but as a form of bondage. In other words, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, he is bound by the deposit of Tradition and the Holy Magisterium that has preceded his utterance over the last two thousand years. He cannot one day claim God is a woman or that fornication is an opportunity for grace; the Pope is beholden to the Truth as it has been interpreted for two milennia. As we believe these truths to be inerrant, therefore any recitation of them is likewise infallible. This is papal infallibility in the proverbial nutshell.
The grand deposit of Revelation transpired with the life, death and resurrection of Christ in one fell swoop. It will take the rest of eternity to 'unpack' this revelation. Ever ancient, ever new...
We Catholics rever the Pope, not in his person, but in his office. We must believe, have to believe, can only believe that whoever is Pope has been selected by the Holy Spirit as the Successor to St. Peter, whom Christ Himself chose as his representative on Earth and gave all due jurisdiction to him as regards the Faith and His Church. He is the Vicar of Christ and the Church's rightful authority.
Robert M. Peters writes:
"As to Holy Writ, we would retort that were it not for the fact that the Ontological Absolute wrote Himself into history in the person of the Christ and through Him in His passion, death, resurrection and ascension become our Kinsman Redeemer there would have been no portion of the Bible called the New Testament and had there been it and its antecedent the Old Testament would have been without meaning unto salvation and matters eternal."
Well, of course, Robert. Is it possible you think that adherents of the ancient Church do not know this? Of course we know this ...
"Without the Christ in this capacity, there would have not been the advent of the Holy Spirit to bear Him witness as He, the Christ bears witness of the Father. Without the Holy Spirit, there would have been no Witness in power and authority to the nascent Church. In His Witness through the Apostles, the Holy Spirit provided the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Revelation which circulated through the churches of the late first, the second and third centuries.
Ditto. I'm scratching my head now. What is your point? You think I'm denying the gift and action of the Holy Spirit? But I am certainly doing no such thing ...
"The very consideration and acts of the Nicene fathers is predicated on the understanding that they were focused on the living Christ, that they were submissive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that they had read and were influenced by the very texts which they would collate into the canon. Christ, the Holy Spirit and the texts under consideration predated the council and influenced their decisions if they were indeed in the will of God."
Well, ~of course~!
"To say, therefore, that the council produced the Bible borders, in my understanding, a tad on blasphemy since without the will of Christ, the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the witness of the very texts which they were considering there would have been no council."
But the council ~did~ produce "the Bible borders," Robert. There were ~hundreds~ of "holy scriptures" circulating through the Christian community in the early Fourth Century. That's a fact. And that's why it became necessary for the Church to "bind" the canon of the New Testament -- in other words, to testify that yes, these books are from the Holy Spirit, while these others are not.
Peace out ...
R. Cort Kirkwood,
Collating the cannon is not the same as writing the texts. I have collated my great grandfather's letters which he wrote during the War Between the States. Neither my style or my authority is in them.
70 Bill Jenkins,
Yes, that indeed was my original question. I was, I will argue, not the original tangent which took us into these other matters; however, I will cede and admit that I have been a willing co-tangent! Or to put it in the vernacular of the hunt, we deer hounds have indeed gotten off the sent of the Great Hart and have begun chasing a rabbit, or perhaps, the March Hare!
I do not pray the Rosary. The Our Father is well known among us nether folk but is rarely prayed as such although it is on occasion recited, usually as a set of memory verses for the younger among us.
Pray I do no little. When one walks with the living Christ, one converses with Him.
78 ECHS1967
I have native fluency in German. When I listen to Dutch, which I understand to no little degree - although I do not speak Dutch, I sometimes get the feeling that Dutch is German, just a little out of phase; or visa versa!
Our discussion on this topic seems very similar. We are almost speaking the same language; yet, we are somewhat out of phase with one another.
His Peace comes only with His Presence. When I pray for His Peace, I understand that it will come only in His Presence. Therefore, I pray to and for you His Peace.
My "comment" is "Your comment is awaiting moderation."??
What did I write that must be "moderated"?
It's probably way too late to get this discussion back on topic, but I'll give it a try. I think Mr. Buchanan may be misstating what the Holy Father has done with his motu proprio. I don't believe there is any requirement for bishops to provide the Tridentine Mass upon request in their diocese. They may not prevent a priest from saying the Mass upon request, but this restriction may be more theoretical than practical. Few priests will go against their bishop; he is their boss and Rome is far away. And many priests may not want or be able to provide the Tridentine Mass upon request. I don't believe the motu proprio obliges them to do so. Short run, this won't have much effect. The longer run is a different matter, especially if the "old" Mass gains mass popularity and if the SSPX is re-united with the Church. For my own part, I regularly attend the Mass of Paul VI, which is the re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice on the cross as much as is the Tridentine Mass. This is why I go and to receive the Body and Blood of Christ in Communion. Anyone who would deliberately avoid these graces for reasons of liking or disliking a particular liturgy has some seriously warped values.
I have no problems praying with Catholics. They can pray in their way and I can pray in my way. Though it does depend on the setting. I would not pray with Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons as I do not consider them Christians as their idea of Salvations is fundamentally different, not believing Jesus Christ to be God.
Muslims? Buddhists? Of course not.
Also, I have no need for Tradition. Neither did the thief on the cross who was saved.
My family is a mixture of Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and atheist and I find that all the traditions, sacraments and whatnot of the Catholic and Orthodox churches blind my family from the core truth; that Jesus is God and that they are in need of repentance in order to be saved. It is analogous to the hundreds of laws and customs the Jews enacted around the core that was provided for them in the Torah. These many additional laws and customs ultimately had the effect of removing the people from the core and therefore of being removed from communion with God, as Jesus alludes to. All these extra layers can be seen in all the capitalized terms written in many of the posts on this thread. They are mostly a distraction from the necessary core of Salvation, and I've only met a couple of Catholics, who I admire very much, who haven't been distracted by these.
I know of only a couple of Catholics who know the Bible reasonably well, and in that I think is the problem because Catholics don't seem to accept the full authority of Scripture, thus leading to these arguments.
When discussing this topic with Christians outside the Catholic fold don't bring your Traditions and Sacraments to the table, because we don't accept them. Our only common ground should be the Bible.
Chris,
But before the ill-gotten rupture of the Reformation, your predecessors DID accept Tradition and the Sacraments. You repeatedly invoke the authority of Scripture - who, precisely, is interpreting Sacred Scripture in your example? You? Or me? Or the guy at the end of the block? In other words, we cannot put ourselves in the predicament of claiming that Sacred Scripture means whatever we choose it to mean; without the inerrant interpretation of the Church Fathers, that's exactly what we get.
The canon of Sacred Scripture was established by the Church. By defering to the authority of Scripture, you are inadvertently defering to Tradition, albeit in a minimalist fashion, as you repudiate all other manifestations of Tradition.
It is a subtle but nonetheless compelling point that Authority MUST be extant in some form - be it a televangelist, or St. Pius X - for Sacred Scripture to be understood beyond literalism and context. So, my friend, you are unwittingly granting some authority (small 'a' here...) the power to interpret Sacred Scripture.
The Sacraments are outward signs, instituted by Christ, which give grace. Each and every one of them is found in the Bible, particularly the Eucharist. What happened to good old-fashioned Protestant fundamentalism when Christ spoke of the bread becoming His Body?
Or when he offered his blessed mother to mankind for its veneration?
Furthermore, Tradition emanates from the life of Christ onwards throughout the history of the Church. St. Dismas, the 'Good Thief' whom you invoke, had the Source of Tradition as his Savior on Good Friday.
Dear ECHS1967,
'Globe-trotting....ecumenical love-fests', indeed!! I, likewise, have been scandalized by the extent trendy RC bishops have similarly gone grovelling about the earth in search of... what, exactly? Forgiveness? Fellowship? Some pathological need better addressed in the confessional rather than on a stage before cameras and journalists?
In the end, mindless ecumenism boils down to nothing more than a horse race among the participants to their lowest common denominator. God forbid the RC or Orthodoxy continue to participate in any way in these shennanigans...
Mr. Kenny, you are right that the New Order Missa didn't impede the return of the Tridentine Mass. On the contrary, it (or more precisely, the abuses that have often occurred during its celebration, particularly in America) seems to have actually caused it.
I don't blame the Mass itself, which as Kirt H. said, is perfectly valid. Without these abuses, however, today's Tridentine Masses would not be so well attended and constantly growing. The traditional movement would be virtually non-existent.
Mr. Peters, I don't think this new universal indult will change
things very much amongst Catholics in the short term. It's just permission -- nobody can tell how far afield it will be put into practice. After all, a priest still has to learn to celebrate the Tridentine. And people have to actually demand it. The real change will come about when the pope (probably not the present one)
commands complete Church-wide return to the Old Rite. I believe it will happen; but probably not soon.
Finally, I'd like to echo what Dr. Phillips said -- we've had those Protestant vs. Catholic "discussions" before; they don't get us very far. Chesterton knew why, when he said : only people that agree with each other can argue.
One last post:
As regards the benighted Dr. Dominic Crossan, formerly the chairman of the religious studies department at DePaul University...
The man served up pabulum and churned out coffee-table literature, all with the objective of denying the divinity and resurrection of Christ. That such turgid nonsense routinely sold well at booksellers and were responsible for turning this miserable man into an iconoclastic cause celebre is bad enough; the fact that this otherwise charming, elfin Irishman held sway over two generations of undergraduate and graduate students in the country's largest 'Catholic' university is a crime that calls out to Heaven for justice. I can honestly tell you that this man was responsible for the loss of faith of not a few students, whose parents trustingly put their charges into his care.
With Crossan's tenure, DePaul's indefatiguable appetite for novelty and error, and the complete breakdown of any Catholic identity at this school, I have oftentimes lamented my inability to call upon the Holy Inquisition for redress...
The Protestant culture that has prevailed in the U.S. has given us this concept and tradition of Biblical authority. It's sort of an odd tradition in light of Tradition.
But just as the Catholic Church, by definition, must claim singular Truth, so too, the Protestant denominations must, of necessity, ignore history and rely on an alternate authority. So, here we be.
"To become deep in history", is the only solution that I know. No amount of doctrinal arguing is going to get us there.
Pertinent to the topic that launched this discussion, the Tridentine Mass, is a fine new book which I have just begun reading, but will dare to recommend: "The Heresy of Formlessness" by German author, Martin Mosebach, Ignatius Press. I think many here will find it an edifying read.
To all:
First, I would expect that the Roman Catholic Church would assert that it is "the one true church". I am not offended by this, unless someone wants to make it offensive to me.
Secondly, to Mr. Joshua Smith, who said "I relish the discourse of Chronicles readers . . . but the discourse among Chronicles readers . . . between the Christian faiths I've found . . . [is] below par." Amen, brother! The nastiness and plain squabbling simply get in the way, and add to the confusion.
Thirdly, to Mr. Muza, "a total rejection of the Nicene Creed" (???) Where did you get this notion? The Nicene Creed can be found on page 71 of the Anglican 1928 Book of Common Prayer; I recite it at almost every Sunday service (very occasionally, we utilize the Apostle's Creed).
Fourth, to Mr. Muza, at post 76 again, regarding your comments about Luther, "wherever he might be" - cute, and not befitting any reasoned discussion. Yes, I am sure that he is chagrined at the state of the Christian faith of some of his followers, just as the various leaders through the ages of the Roman Catholic church must likewise be concerned at the state of the Christian faith of some of their followers. It was interesting, some years ago, on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Luther's birth, an occasion on which the Pope preached at a Lutheran church in Rome, that a number of biblical scholars stated that if Luther were alive today, he would be a Roman Catholic priest, and a conservative one. And to essentially call (reference your earlier post 36) Luther's work a "vanity play" is ahistorical. My wife has read a great many of the books written by Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, and we both heartily applaud the course he has taken. Read what he says about Luther.
Fifth, to Mr. Kirkwood, yeah, you did appear to lump Buddhists with Baptists, and thankfully corrected any such impression. But you do state (at your post 65) words to the effect that maintaining that all Christian churches are equally valid puts you "on shaky ground" should you choose to deny that all religions are equally valid; I think that you can SAY that, but the inference that follows, i.e., that it is untenable ground, is invalid. I myself would not agree that all Christian churches are equally valid, but first, I would define what I meant by "Christian churches". And, I would begin by stipulating that Christ, not ANY church (institution/structure/body of beliefs) or church forefather, is the Rock, around which the rest must necessarily be oriented; these "things" oriented around Christ are necessarily secondary to Christ. If you don't agree, that's OK. And I will take this opportunity to say I do enjoy your pieces in Chronicles.
As you might guess, I attend one of the (now rare) traditional Anglican churches. We pray the sacraments, and use the standard liturgy I find in both our church and in others.
Twice in the next three weeks I will attend, and rejoice in, my local (Carmel) Bach Festival's production of "The Passion of Our Lord According to St. Matthew", written by an adherent of that heretic Luther named Johann Sebastian Bach, and possessed of more genuine knowledge of and feeling for the Christian faith, what it is and what it means, than a whole lot of blog artists. I will be privileged to hear arias like "Aus Liebe will mein Heiland sterben" (Out of love will my Savior die), "Erbarme dich, mein Gott" (Have mercy on me, God), and "Mache dich, mein Herze, rein" (Make my heart clean [from sin]), a prayer I say silently to myself when I am at the communion rail. The whole would wring tears out of a stone.
And now, enough. My advice is to listen to the "Passion" with some introspection, and think about what it tells you. Your love of and appreciation for the Christian faith will be increased by this music written by a man dubbed by some Harvard musicologists some years ago as "the fifth Evangelist". High praise? Yes, and most apt.
Mr. Sitton,
1. I am confident you recite the Nicene Creed per your traditional Anglican spirituality, and believe it with all your heart. My point, muddled once again, is that most Protestants - particularly of the evangelical flavor - have profound difficulties with the implications of the Creed. This is by no means a blanket indictment of all Protestants; though, by your own admission, the ranks of traditional churches are getting a wee bit thin.
2. I was in no way attempting to be 'cute' or mocking in my comment, "wherever he might be", in regards to Martin Luther. As we are all sinners in this world, and have no capacity to know God's judgment as regards the souls who pass before us, it is therefore not entirely absurd to wonder which way they went. I pray Luther is saved; I have no desire for any man's damnation. But unless one is declared a saint, thereby demonstrating one's close proximity to the Beatific Vision, there's no way to tell. I am unaware if the Lutherans have canonized Martin, and I apologize for my ignorance on that issue. Furthermore, it is by no means nasty to refer to the various Reformation events as vanity plays. It is one thing to be consumed by the righteousness of one's conscience; it is quite another to wrecklessly break ranks and advocate others to do the same. Few were on his best behavior in the 16th century (with the exception, of course, of Thomas More, John Fisher and a host of other martyrs), particularly when it was not inevitable that events should play out as they unfortunately did. I only wish Luther, in all his brilliance as a Scripture scholar, had sought another path. Henry VIII, on the other hand, is a horse of an entirely different color...
3. I am very happy that you and your wife have read the works of Benedict XVI; we should all be so inclined to edify ourselves in this way, as the current Pope is an acknowledged intellectual and theologian of a very high order.
You are the recipient of no small amount of grace as illustrated by your love of God and Sacred Tradition. I strive to match your zeal, commitment and wisdom. My hope is that one day, pray it be sooner rather than later, we may repair the rift, for it is surely hateful to God.
Pax vobiscum et familia tua
Who asked Abe for his opinion? Don't you have enough enemies on your plate?
"... from the Orthodox Christian understanding of the canons of several ecumenical councils, all binding on pain of anathemata, I can pray ~for~ a Baptist, I can pray ~standing next to~ a Baptist, but I cannot pray ~with~ a Baptist because I cannot be sure that the Baptist is a member of Christ’s church."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Oxford English Dictionary's understanding of the word *pray*:
cl. Latin *precari*, to entreat
1. To ask earnestly, humbly or supplicatingly, to make devout petition to; to ask (a person) for something as a favour...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a Catholic. I would not have any objection to praying *with* a Baptist.
I would not, for that matter, have any objection to praying *to* a Baptist.
Me on the motu.
Brian A. Muza,
You are filled with fear. It has been in you for so long now that you don't recognize it as something seperate from you. It hides itself in a cloak of empty intellectualism and moral superiority. It spews venom and poisons those around you with fear. It will lead to sickness and hate. If you continue on this path you will poison she who you love most.
Wake up.
Even as you read this your rage boils up and has already become a conditioned reflex to simply dismiss this message as coming from some anonymous lost soul. Could it come from the depths of your own soul? Or have all the miracles already concluded.
Surrender.