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)
We are not out of the woods yet - according to the motu proprio the entire issue of offering Mass with the Missal of 1962 will be evaluated after three years.
There are priests offering the Novus Ordo today with proper reverence, humility, and respect for the Eurcharist today. However, if we can keep the Missal of 1962 the long-term affect maybe a slow reform of the Novus Ordo - a return of traditional prayers and calendar, less options, more precise rubrics, better translations, and more appreciation of the sacred. It will be difficult to maintain St. Bozo's abuse of the Novus Ordo in the same Church with the Mass of Pope St. Pius V.
Harry Wisniewski
I live out my faith in the Christ in the context and traditions of Southern Baptists, albeit belonging to a minority thereof who are not dispensationalists with all of the baggage thereof.
Although I am not a Roman Catholic, I have been a long-time admirer of Cardinal Ratzinger and have felt a spiritual kinship with him as Benedict XVI.
His motu proprio declaring that the Latin Mass must be said in every diocese—on the request of the faithful, with dissenting bishops must complying, is welcomed by me in honor of my old barber, the man who cut my hair from the time that I was two until I was nineteen. He was the head of one of five Roman Catholic families in a sea of us Southern Baptist, all in the backwater of history in Grant Parish, Louisiana. I remember his lamenting the passing of the Latin mass and noting, that before, while the Latin mass was still used, he could go anywhere in the world as a Catholic and understand and participate in the mass. I also note that my barber probably never left Grant Parish, but that is beside the point.
This line from Mr. Buchanan' article caught my attention, however:
"If the true church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic, then not all churches are equal."
I am considered an oddity among some fellow Southern Baptist because I keep company and even seek counsel from Papist and renegade Episcopalians, i.e. those that believe in God - many thereof having become Anglicans. For you Roman Catholics who read and post on this board, does Mr. Buchanan's quote reproduced supra suggest that my Catholic friends, who include priests, will no longer feel comfortable praying with me and discussing matters of faith with me as a brother in Christ? If so, I guess that it will simply be the renegade Episcopalians and I!
I am greatly pleased by the Pope's decision, as, indeed, I am with just about everything Benedict has done so far. I am no admirer of the Latin Mass. I grew up with it in the Ireland of the 1950s, I wasn't sorry to see it go and I don't think its going had anything to do with the decline in religion. Equally, its return does not herald a revival of religion. That return has itself been brought about by an ongoing revival which the vernacular Mass did nothing to impede. In fact, the return of the Latin Mass is in the spirit of Vatican II, inasmuch as it permits people to reach out to God in the way which best suits them.
The interesting point, though, is that the whole thing seems to be part of a growing "disaffection" between the Catholic Church and the Israel Lobby, which seem to have viewed the Church and American Catholics in particular as "useful idiots" to be harnessed to their political agenda (the distortion of the Pope's Regensburg speech was part of this!) and who are now mightily displeased to find that that is not going to happen!
A final point: it is in the nature of religion itself for all religions to see themselves as the "true" religion. There's not much point in belonging to any other religion! Thus, I don't understand how anyone can be offended at the idea of people of other religions praying for his (or my!) conversion to their church. It may well just be the "religion = people" link that makes it hard for Jews to grasp.
No, a Catholic should not feel uncomfortable discussing the faith with Mr. Peters. But his question raises another, apropos of Buchanan's quote: If there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, why should someone be a Catholic? Why not become a Baptist? Or a Unitarian? Or a Buddhist?
A few links, one on indifferentism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07759a.htm). Here is a relevant paragraph:
"It would be beyond the scope of this article to develop, or even briefly sketch, the argument contained in the Scriptures and in the history of the Church for the truth that, from the beginning, Christianity was a dogmatic religion with a rule of faith, a rule of conduct, a definite, if not fully developed, system, with promises to be fulfilled for those who adhered to the creed, the discipline, and the system, and with anathemas for those who rejected them. The exposition and the proof of these facts constitute, in theology, the treatise on the Church (see CHURCH). One obvious consideration may be briefly pointed out which lays bare the inconsistency of liberal indifferentism. If, as this theory admits, God did reveal any truth to men, then He surely intended that it should be believed. He can not have meant that men should treat His revelation as of no importance, or that it should signify one thing to you and something entirely different to me, nor can He be indifferent as to whether men interpret it correctly or incorrectly. If He revealed a religion, reason certainly tells us that such a religion must be true, and all others that disagree with it false, and that He desires men to embrace it; otherwise, why should He have given any revelation at all? It is true that in many places the Scriptures are obscure and furnish to those who assume to interpret them by the light of private judgment alone many occasions of reaching irreconcilable conclusions. This fact, however, proves only the falseness of the Protestant rule of faith. The inference that flows from it is not that all interpretations are equally trustworthy, but that, since God has given us a revelation which is not so clearly or fully expressed in the Scriptures that reason can grasp it with certitude, He must have constituted some authority to teach us what is the burden of revelation.
"The cogency of this reasoning when set forth at adequate length has led into the Catholic Church many sincere non-Catholics, who have observed how Rationalism is rapidly dissolving religious faith over wide areas once occupied by dogmatic Protestantism."
On the question of salvation outside the Church, an answer: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm
I am worried that Bishop Williamson may pitch a fit if Bishop Fellay responds too favorably to overtures by Pope Benedict XVI. Bishop Williamson is the most schismatic of the SSPX four. He doesn't seem to recognize that the idea of traditionalist Roman Catholics should be to restore the old faith within the Roman Catholic superstructure and not to brat away at the Chuch from some backwater.
And, if I may, an interesting piece at Taki: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/could_the_latin_mass_save_western_civilization/
Mr. Peters,
The Roman Catholic Church has always claimed the primacy of the Holy Spirit in teaching Truth through the Holy See (Seat of Peter) in Rome. That is the essence of its claim to be THE One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. How else can it be and still be the church instituted by Christ?
As the Vatican has clarified so nicely today, Protestant Christians are "wounded" in their faith and not fully in Christ's Church. Again, how else can it be?
But we can still talk and pray together.
Please check out: http://www.catholicism.org. They'll lead y'all correctly.
>If there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, why should
>someone be a Catholic? Why not become a Baptist? Or a Unitarian?
>Or a Buddhist?
You are comparing Baptists to Buddhists?
As a Baptist, I believe I am saved through the blood of Christ, after the repenting of my sins.
We believe that Jesus Christ is God and that the only way to Salvation is to repent and believe upon him. No religious institution is involved. Of course, religious institutions can be helpful in providing guidance, community and support so as not to fall away from the faith.
Notice the thief on the cross next to Christ did not have a religious institution to save him. He was saved by repenting and believing that Christ is God.
>Protestant Christians are “wounded” in
>their faith and not fully in Christ’s Church.
>Again, how else can it be?
How are we "Protestant" "Christians" wounded in our faith? Perhaps from your Catholic perspective it is so but we do not adhere to your fallible human institution. Our only authority is the Bible, from which we are told of eternal Hell and salvation from it.
The foundation of our belief consists of two premises. The first one being that there is a Creator. The second premise is that the Bible is true. If any of those premises fail then our Christian faith fails and our hopes are nothing.
Where the Catholic Church fits in this I don't know. Keep in mind that the first Christian churches were in Jerusalem, NOT Rome.
E.A., you are very confused.
I have no clue as to what your post was about.
E. A., when joining in a discussion on Christianity be at least a bit informed on the essentials. I'm not interested in your Gnostic sounding nonsense.
Chris,
You chart a singular path to salvation based on an interpretation of revelation. A revelation carried through history largely by the Catholic Church.
Let me re-word my rhetoric: What else can the Catholic Church claim regarding the singularity of its Office?
Bill,
>You chart a singular path to
>salvation based on an
>interpretation of revelation.
>A revelation carried through
>history largely by the Catholic Church.
An interpretation of the Bible. We have the Bible apart from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church helped preserve it.
chreeees, 'ave you spok'n to the loooord layt'ly?
aw sayyh, not beleeeven' in yer buuuuuble is mort'l seeeeeen!...
Well.
Mr. Peters: I really don't wish to spoil the party, but 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. The fact that some globe-trotting Orthodox bishops have been participating in ecumenical lovefests does not change the holy canons. If the church is indeed one, holy, catholic and apostolic, this means that ~all~ the truth of Christ is preserved in ~all~ its purity and fullness in one vessel. This does not mean that I have some, you have some, His Holiness the Pope has some, the faithful Anglicans have some, for all we know the Moonies have some -- just shake and stir all elements and voila: the true faith!
Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Jenkins: Thanks for the valuable and pertinent contributions. Would you concede that the Protestants are the children of the Roman Church? If so, what might this say about Mother?
Chris: An American evangelical once asked an old Russian priest-monk whether the Orthodox Church "believes" in the Bible. "Believe in Bible?" Father replied. "We WROTE Bible."
In any case, a hearty bravo to Pope Benedict for acceding to the legitimate pastoral needs of some of his flock. And if -- just if -- this signals a return by Rome to the authentic sources of its tradition, then a heartier bravo still. But don't stop there, Your Holiness. Keep going. Keep going until you've arrived at the imperishable holy tradition of the original undivided church.
EA,
>There were NEVER any “christian” churches
>in jerusalem prior to Constantine,
If the above is representative of your knowledge then please don't waste my time.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your definition of a 'church'.
WHAT is your definition of 'church'?
>i’m so Aware and accurate about
>every aspect of christianity
Only a true fool would be so sure of himself. Perhaps you are a waste of my time.
ECHS1967,
>An American evangelical once asked an old Russian priest-monk
>whether the Orthodox Church “believes” in the Bible. “Believe in
>Bible?” Father replied. “We WROTE Bible.”
The above applies exactly to you as well. What you wrote is meaningless.
We believe in the core message of the available translations, which is that all are sinners and go to Hell for eternity, but while on earth have the opportunity to grab a lifeline, which is Christ, by repenting of our sins and believing on him as God.
I'm being and very clear as to where I'm coming from. Most of the responses I'm getting seem to come from people smoking something. I would have gotten much further with Buddhists by now.
>I’m being and very clear
I meant 'I’m being very clear '
E. A., spare me your vile attitude and ignorance.
No Christians till Rome? What you write is pure bovine waste matter. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of terms here but what you write is not backed by any respected historian.
I am coming from the point of view that the Bible is true in its claims. If I wanted to debate the veracity of the Bible I would go to an atheist site, not Chronicles Magazine.
Don't bother replying because I will ignore anything you post.
EA, as for smacking me around, I'm 6'3, 230 pounds. If you're in downtown Vancouver, BC, let's meet by the water front and you can try.
Boys, boys. Ain't this a fine how-d'ya-do for a friendly Christian debate. So much for ecumenism. Never did go much for that anyhow!
Hi Bill, I think I was being quite civilized.
This just in ...
"Pope: Other Christians Not True Churches
July 10, 2007
By NICOLE WINFIELD
Associated Press Writer
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation."
And so on ...
I am pleased to report that the Pope is a Catholic.
ECHS1967,
I have chosen to respond to your post from among the many who responded to mine because it is most to the point. I appreciate the frank and open responses of each who did respond. Perhaps, in time, were this thread to last, if not cut by Atropos in the person of Dr. Fleming or someone under his authority, I will get around to respectfully responding to each post which my original "conjured up" as it were.
ECHS1967,
What I find to be quite interesting is that the majority of Southern Baptist, although certainly not all - therein am I included but certainly not unto "liberalism" but unto my understanding of Scripture on this matter, would hold of you as a Roman Catholic that which you hold of them: that you are not a member of Christ's church, that you have no claim as a Roman Catholic to salvation and that they could not pray with you.
Actually, however, I know of no Southern Baptist who would disagree with this sentence from your post supra.
"If the church is indeed one, holy, catholic and apostolic, this means that ~all~ the truth of Christ is preserved in ~all~ its purity and fullness in one vessel."
It is obvious that Southern Baptist, including me, understand these words to mean something very different from your understanding, for if our understandings were the same thereof, this fundamental disagreement would not be sojourning among us.
Actually, almost all Southern Baptist would agree with you on the following statement which you made in your post supra:
"...but I cannot pray ~with~ a Baptist because I cannot be sure that the Baptist is a member of Christ’s church."
We would say, to paraphrase you, that you can be baptized so many times that you know the frogs by their first names, but that does not make you a Christian. We would say that the actual reality of who is a Christian or not is known only to the alleged believer and the Christ and that the Church is full of excellent counterfeits who can do the good works, go through the religious rites, give tithes and offerings, and so on and so forth. In some ways, I would submit, we are less naive in that respect. This is where I, as a sort of Scriptural Steppenwolf, differ with many Baptist - I extend this to Catholics as well, meaning that who is to know that there are not truly born again, new creatures in Christ walking among Roman Catholics. If we can doubt fellow Baptist unto the negative; for it is certainly prudent to do so, can we not hope for Catholics unto the positive; for it is certainly Christ-like to do so. What is truly written in your heart, I do not know; nor do you know what is truly written in mine, my attestations to be counted among the Faithful not withstanding.
It does indeed seem that we are yet and even still at Worms in 1521. Worms, in 1521 was a convenient articulation of friction because it was a familial cabal. With Islam, secularism, and the truly apostate churches - those who reject the Christ as God and His blood as redeeming, we have formidable enemies. Perhaps God will use these real enemies to kill one of the two of our factions off and set the record straight once and for all. Or, perhaps He has another solution through the transforming and transcending power of the Christ Himself. It is indeed odd that neither side seems to want this option. Most likely it is our arrogance, our hubris, our pride, and the fleshly remnant of the fall itself which impedes us from exercising it.
If you have a sense of humor, I'll share a bit of witticism. It seems that His Holiness was awakened by an assistant around midnight and told that he had an important phone call from God Himself. The Vicar of Christ retorted that he communicated daily with God in prayer and surely God would not be on the phone. The assistant insisted, so the Pope took the phone and immediately recognized that it was indeed the Ontological Absolute. He told the good Bishop of Rome that He had good news and bad news and wanted to know which he should give first. Ever the optimist, the Holy Father said to give him the good news first. The Heavenly Father then retorted that He had decided to end all schisms and denominations; there would truly be one universal church. Thereabout was the Patriarch of the Western Church no little elated and exclaimed that such was the very mission of the Vatican. The Lord of Host then said, "Now for the bad news; I'm calling you from Salt Lake City!"
I look forward to your response. By the way, I'll pray WITH you any day!
onward, onward maaaw christi'n soldiers! as tar buuuuuuble sayyhs, dooo speeeel some bloooohd for yer jeeeeeeeeezus!
aw commeyyynd yer chreeeeees, maw boy, just git tar paypist!
ain't "E.T." or "A.E." an evel commmmmie spayce ahlien?
maaaay the looooord bleys tar chronicles 'n doc t.f. for sum fuuuuuun...
Mr. Wisniewski,
Your cautious attitude is wise, but its almost melancholy tone is more than understandable...
For those of us who knew nothing other than an oftentimes blasphemous ad lib Novus Ordo Mass (I was born in 1967), endured the relentless brainwashing of corrupted parochial grammar schools, 'Catholic' high schools and universities, and only came to experience the Tridentine Mass in our 20's, the slow yet methodical current sweeping through the Church is absolutely amazing, particularly here in Chicago, formerly one of the most liberal archdioceses on earth. To wit:
1. I happened upon a then-recently reopened St. John Cantius Church on Chicago's Near North Side while on my morning commute during my senior year at St. Ignatius College Preparatory, where a hard coterie of Post-Modernist Jesuits and mentally ill laymen did their level best to destroy whatever vestige of faith or devotion may have remained in the naive student body. At the time, Fr. Frank Phillips was the sole custodian of the church, having rescued it from Bernardin's wrecking ball. Some twenty-odd years later, what started out as a delightful diversion for eccentrics such as myself has come full-bloom; Fr. Phillips is now the superior of his own religious order (Canons Regular of St. John Cantius), vocations to it are exponential in growth, the parish is beyond thriving, and the church itself has been completely retored in all of its majesty. St. John Cantius is easily the most beautiful church in the Midwest. And all of this miraculous success is due to Fr. Phillips devotion to the Tridentine Mass, traditional spirituality, staunch orthodoxy and Catholic culture and art. I was married in this chruch and had my father's Requiem Mass said there. It is a marvel, and Cardinal George is no stranger in his advocacy of this magnificent place. Please visit their website (http://www.cantius.org/).
2. Cardinal George presented the fabulous Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest (http://www.institute-christ-king.org/) with the former St. Gelasius parish in Chicago's Hyde Park. The Institute is a European order which avails itself exclusively of Latin sacraments and Tridentine liturgy. Such an invitation would have been unthinkable not that many years ago. Unbelievable...
3. All of this may bode well for the reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X with Holy Mother Church. If this happens officially, I will gladly send my infant daughter to the grammar school the Society runs in nearby Oak Park, IL...
4. The heterodox priests are dinosaurs whereas Benedict XVI is the meteor. The fools who 'taught' me, for whom I served as an acolyte, by whom I was held hostage as an unwilling college and graduate student - all of these men are dying or otherwise taking themselves off the playing field. The pederast priests have done themselves in, and the young generation is clamoring for Tradition. My God, the irony is palpable: when the young are wiser and more desirable to one than the old...
In short, Tradition, orthodoxy, and Catholicism are on the march, and what a triumphant march it is. There is still plenty to do - the bad people are not leaving us quickly enough, and I could write textbooks on the heresies continuing to issue forth from my alma maters Loyola U. and DePaul (anyone remember Dominic Crossan?), but again, these people are past their prime and will soon go back to God. Let us be patient, but vigilant. And let us thank our blessed Holy Father for this wonderful gift!
Mr. Peters,
Lest you be misled by ill-informed Catholics, the only ecumenism possible (meaning, quite cogently, an inevitable reunion and reconciliation within one Church) exists ONLY between the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Christianity. (The Byzantine Catholic tradition is instructive herein. ) There can be no reunion between the Catholic Church and subsequent Protestant confessions which are entirely divorced from Tradition, the Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and the fullness of revealed Truth. All Protestant churches, regardless of their perceived pedigree of 'high/low church', are schismatic vanity plays of mere mortals - Luther, Calvin, Henry, God-knows-who. I can only marvel at man's stubborness in continuing in his devotion to such heresies. Recall St. John Henry Newman's wise counsel: to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant... ECHS1967 is quite right in all regards herein.
I am a huge fan of Pat Buchanan. I wish he had been elected President in 1992
Notwithstanding, I am disappointed that, on this topic, he is Vatican hack.
A centralized, one-size-fits-all church, is the antithesis of paleoconservatism. Theologically, the true chucrch has always been one, with myriad local manifestations.
I forgive Pat, and choose to remain in fellowship with all my Catholic, Orthodox, and "other Christian" brethren who truly believe in and obey Messiah.
The argument here is not which is the one true church, but with the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to be that church. And I repeat to Mr. Peters and Chris (if he and E.A have returned from their waterfront date):
Given its history, what else would the Roman Catholic Church claim? What else could it claim? That claim and its most recent manifestations from the Vatican should neither shock nor dismay.
Chris, Re: your sparring with E.A.: Answer not a fool in his folly. The banter is beneath the dignity of the topic at hand.
The one holy catholic church has splintered historically into catholic, orthodox and protestant factions and sub-factions. The tares will grow unimpeded alongside the wheat until the Lord Himself separates them in His own time. God will gather His own elect out of them all. The false notions of mariolatry and purgatory will be burned away like dross.
I should've said "chaff" not dross.
Mr. Jenkins is correct. The argument is whether the claims of the Roman Catholic Church are valid. You either understand and concede the point about indifferentism or you don't.
Amen, Nicholasville; well said.
Mr. Kirkwood,
I am also a huge fan of yours and quote you regularly on my blog. I admire your intellectual rigor.
Regarding indifferentism, I follow the argument. I find it interesting, however, that when discussing the Pharisees (who I assume we'd all agree represent a "false" or defective religious system) with the common people, Jesus urged the people to obey the Pharisees without imbibing their leaven (i.e. false, additive, oral traditions).
In other words, He acknowledged the subtle difference between respecting human authority and remaining true to God in the heart.
The RCC (or any church) can claim whatever it wants. I agree with Mr. Jenkins that it couldn't claim any less.
Just like the Pharisees claimed to embody orthodox Judaism which, too, began as a revelation of true religion from God.
I'm not equating Phariseeism with Romanism, per se. I'm asserting that Jesus revealed a difference between faith (and the works that accompany that faith) and outward, religious authority.
"The foundation of God stands sure, having this seal: the Lord knows them that are His."
To Rubley's Dog:
Thanks for your nice compliment.
If you accept Mr. Jenkins point, and agree that the Church cannot claim anything less, and you also understand indifferentism, then wouldn't it be logical, as well as wise, to examine whether that claim is true?
My concession to Mr. Jenkins simply acknowledges that any church with conviction is going to claim to be the true church.
Indifferentism holds "...His revelation as of no importance, or that it should signify one thing to you and something entirely different to me..."
It is unfortunate that Christendom, broadly speaking, has devolved to such a state. However, I sincerely believe that "His revelation" can be vigorously held without confinement in one particular, liturgical, magisterial tradition.
And there we'll just have to disagree.
Notwithstanding, keep up the great work of proclaiming the truth and exposing the errors of the abstract, ideological state.
Boy, glad to see Chris and E.A. have worked things out. I was about to call the Bush admin to come and bring some democracy.
Christians fighting against Christians is presently happening all over the web and it's hysterical. Gee, thanks, Your Holiness.
My Dad used to tell stories about the good ol' days in Canada when the Toronto Maple Leafs played the Montreal Canadians and it was religious war: Protestants vs the Catholics. Fights, riots, mayhem. And that was just in the rink!
Thank you, Mr. Cortwood.
Just to notch-up the rhetoric a bit:
How is the claim by the Catholic Church to be the one, true church any more offensive or "divisive" than the implicitly on-going 500 year-old claim by the Protestant denominations of at least an element of falsehood in the status of the Catholic Church?
And as a friend rhetorically asked, why do the Protestants care if the institution, the rejection of whose claims defines their existence, asserts a fundamental claim which they reject?
Thank you, Mr. Kirkwood. My apologies.
Very good questions, Mr. Jenkins. And as Mr. Muza suggested above, central to this debate is the Protestants' rejection of the sacraments, most notably, Holy Eucharist, and the Real Presence.
Roman Catholic = Truth
Orthodox = truth
Protestant denominations = truthiness
Mr. Muza,
Well acquainted I am with your postion given infra,
"Mr. Peters,
Lest you be misled by ill-informed Catholics, the only ecumenism possible (meaning, quite cogently, an inevitable reunion and reconciliation within one Church) exists ONLY between the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Christianity. (The Byzantine Catholic tradition is instructive herein. ) There can be no reunion between the Catholic Church and subsequent Protestant confessions which are entirely divorced from Tradition, the Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and the fullness of revealed Truth. All Protestant churches, regardless of their perceived pedigree of ‘high/low church’, are schismatic vanity plays of mere mortals - Luther, Calvin, Henry, God-knows-who. I can only marvel at man’s stubborness in continuing in his devotion to such heresies. Recall St. John Henry Newman’s wise counsel: to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant… ECHS1967 is quite right in all regards herein."
for it is precisely the position that most of my fellow Baptist hold of Roman Catholics. It would lead one to believe that you people use the same script writer! ;0)
I personally have not a tolerant bone in me and am not given to ecumenical movements of any sort. My understanding in the matter is determined, not by some need to be trendy, but by two means and faculties which the Ontological Absolute has given us, namely His Scripture and reason.
If you go back to my original post, I did and do applaude Benedict XVI's postion on the Latin Mass. Technically, I do not have a dog in this fight, save that I myself enjoy the Latin Mass and find that it being a wonder of beauty must be of God. Since I see with the eye of the Christ, I tend to recognize His beauty even when it appears in some unknown form.
Mr. Jenkins,
Your words infra:
"Thank you, Mr. Cortwood.
Just to notch-up the rhetoric a bit:
How is the claim by the Catholic Church to be the one, true church any more offensive or “divisive” than the implicitly on-going 500 year-old claim by the Protestant denominations of at least an element of falsehood in the status of the Catholic Church?
And as a friend rhetorically asked, why do the Protestants care if the institution, the rejection of whose claims defines their existence, asserts a fundamental claim which they reject?"
I, of course, can only speak for myself on this thread and do not deign to speak for others. I do not find the claims of the Catholic Church to be offensive or divisive at all. Care I also do not what the Catholic Church claims. The bottom line is that what the Catholic Church holds or believes to be true has nothing to do with my being a Christian, being born again, being a new creature in Christ, being transformed by Him into His likeness, being a member of the Body of the Christ, or finding my place among the saints in eternity. If I remotely thought that a Pope, a bishop, a priest or a council played some role therein, I would have a care.
My existence as a Christian is not defined by rejecting the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. My existence as a Christian is determined by the passion, the death, and the resurrection of the Christ and my having received the Grace which He gives therethrough by admitting what He already knows, that I am a sinner; by believing that through His death that He has become and is my Kinsman Redeemer; and by confessing with my mouth that He is Lord and by holding in my heart that the Father has raised Him, the Son, from the dead, and that, fully acknowledged under the unction of the Holy Spirit.
Now, I am not at all sure where that has taken the rhetoric. :0)
Nicholasville Conservative writes:
"The one holy catholic church has splintered historically into catholic, orthodox and protestant factions and sub-factions."
The Church, by definition being One, cannot "splinter" into factions with ceasing to be the Church. Church "factions" may disagree, say, about the rules for fasting, but they would not disagree about the role of fasting in the Church's life. When Faction A and Faction B disagree about a matter of dogmatic or moral substance, such as the Holy Trinity or the prohibition of adultery, the Church does not splinter -- one faction remains the Church and the other takes up its position outside the Church.
The "branch theory" of Christianity is a false and heretical ecclesiology, denying the essential unity of the Body of Christ.
Mr. Peters,
Did Christ establish a church?
Where is it, now?
Mr. Jenkins,
Your query:
"Mr. Peters,
Did Christ establish a church?
Where is it, now? "
Yes, He died for her! She is his bride and his body. He is the head of her. As Adam of the first creation, the one who fell, went into a deep sleep and from his side was made Eve; so Christ, the Second Adam, when He died with side wounded, blood and water flowing out, begat His Church. The Christ is the first fruit of the new creation and from him comes His Church.
The Church is eternal, catholic and there wherever Christians go into a dark and dying world carrying in the witness of their through-the-Christ transformed and being-transformed lives the Gospel and the salt and the light of the Christ.
One does hope that the Church does not become like Eve and desire to usurp the place of the Christ as Eve did to Adam. Such would be blasphemy and heresy on a grand scale. When one meets the true Church, one meets the Christ. Were He is not, the true Church is not. The true Church is always following the Christ, daily asking, "Domine, quo vadis!" Neither He nor His blood or body constitutes some artifact which the Church gives out at her ceremonial whim.
For my answer you have asked and thereof have you received.
Dear Mr. Peters,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply and the warm tone. One point, though: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Roman Catholic. I am an Orthodox Christian, a member of the so-called "Eastern" Church -- you know, the one that usually has some exotic-sounding ethnic in its name, such as Greek, Russian, Romanian, etc. There are about 360 million of this on the planet but only five million, tops, in North America. So we have what Madison Avenue would call a problem with brand recognition.
You write, quoting me, "Actually, however, I know of no Southern Baptist who would disagree with this sentence from your post supra: 'If the church is indeed one, holy, catholic and apostolic, this means that ~all~ the truth of Christ is preserved in ~all~ its purity and fullness in one vessel.'"
Well, I am cheered, frankly, that Southern Baptists would agree that Christ's Church is distinguished by those four markers, as promulgated by the Nicene fathers in the Fourth Century. After all, you fellows weren't around to attend that meeting. On the meeting agenda, inter alia, was the canon of the New Testament. The canon was fixed, then and there, forever, by a gathering of bishops representing the one and only church in the world. Which goes to show that the Bible is the Bible because ... the Church says it's the Bible.
You write:
"We would say that the actual reality of who is a Christian or not is known only to the alleged believer and the Christ and that the Church is full of excellent counterfeits who can do the good works, go through the religious rites, give tithes and offerings, and so on and so forth."
We Orthodox would agree -- although we would have some problem with the idea that Joe is a Christian because Joe believes himself to be a Christian. We would be much more comfortable with the idea that Joe is a Christian not only because he believes himself to be one, but because his brothers and sisters in faith -- united by the legacy that goes all the way back to the family's beginning -- recognize him as a member of the family. This isn't just about the relationship between Jesus and Joe, because through Jesus, Joe has lots of brothers and sisters, and Joe's relationship to them is also part of his relationship to Jesus, inevitably. We're damned alone but we're saved together.
"What is truly written in your heart, I do not know; nor do you know what is truly written in mine, my attestations to be counted among the Faithful not withstanding."
This is certainly true. Let us hope and pray for each other's salvation -- and for the salvation of all men, as far as may be possible.
ICXC NIKA!
from http://znewz1.blogspot.com:
Pope: Salvation occurring in Protestant churches
The New York Times and Associated Press reports on the pope's statement about Catholic church primacy omitted an important detail. I don't suspect the writers of being unprofessional. I suspect that they simply did not see the meaningfulness and news value of the overlooked point.
The Pope's assessment of Protestant churches as "defective" is pretty much a technicality of a type common to many religious establishments: our church/way etc. is the "authorized" version. Yet, here's the important point: the pope explicitly stated that God is using Protestant churches to effect individual salvation.
This makes sense, in that Jesus said that he had not lost anyone given him by the Father, in that Jesus said he would be with "you always, even until the end of the age," in that Paul the apostle said that "all who call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved" and he clearly meant Jesus, which means "The LORD (Yahweh) saves."
Wouldn't it be nice if the Shia and the Sunni could see that real Christianity is long past the stage of putting people to death for divergent views (though many nominal/cultural Christians have not absorbed that idea)?
You can read the actual statement at
http://212.77.1.245/news/press/vis/dinamiche/a0-en.htm
Brian A. Muza writes:
"Lest you be misled by ill-informed Catholics, the only ecumenism possible (meaning, quite cogently, an inevitable reunion and reconciliation within one Church) exists ONLY between the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Christianity. (The Byzantine Catholic tradition is instructive herein. )"
Others would add the Nestorian and Monophysite churches, as well ...
Mr. Kirkwood,
Glad to see your writing at Chronicles. In case you've missed it, we have re-fought the Protestant Reformation here a hundred times.
I get your point about the claims of the Catholic Church, but I do think lumping Baptists in with Buddhists is a bit argumentative.
As a conservative evangelical, I think the central issue for us with the Catholic Church is sola fide of which the sacraments are a sub issue.
Mr. Jenkins,
Unless I am mixing you up with someone else, you don't consider yourself a Protestant either, correct? You are a primitivist. Just wanted to point that out, because you can seemingly set back and take shots at all involved.
IMO, you are a part of the Protestant tradition whether you like it or not so our battles are your battles. Some Baptist (my denomination) claim not to be protestants either, on the theory that there was always a Baptist (or faithful) remnant. But to me that is wishful thinking. Church history does not support that view.
Sorry if I mixed you up with someone else.