Polemics & Exchanges

Numquam et Nusquam

Scott P. Richert (“Returning to Reality,” Views, December) says he’s a Catholic.  He doesn’t write like one.

What distinguishes Catholics is possession of a Deposit of Faith given 2,000 years ago.  No, saith Richert.  What’s important is a “lived relationship with the Risen Christ from which those doctrines flow . . . ”  Lived relationship?  Just what does that mean?  “Risen” Christ?  You mean like those elongated Resurrectiofixes the postconciliar Church presents instead of the suffering and mortification communicated by the Crucified Christ?  How modern.  How ecumenical.  How Protestant.

Later he writes, dismissively, that “Doctrine has become a substitute for the substance of the Faith, rather than a catechetical tool that is meant to help us understand what we, as Christians, experience.”  How does he know that?   And when did “experience” become the central issue for anyone but charismatics?  The earliest Christians were told to believe and be saved, not experience and be saved.

Still later, he notes the eroding moral consensus on abortion and attributes it to the loss not only of the “Christian understanding of the sacredness of life but, more importantly, of the experience...

Join now to access the full article and gain access to other exclusive features.

Get Started

Already a member? Sign in here

X