-
Telling It Like It Is
March 31, 2012 | 4 comments
-
A Guide To Lay Holiness
January 9, 2012 | 396 comments
-
P.S. 1984
July 12, 2011 | 52 comments
-
A Gentle Man
February 28, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Faith Without Reason
October 28, 2010 | 61 comments
Buy the Book
The Future Is Now
John Allen’s reporting on the Catholic Church is of the highest order.
(Page 2 of 2)
The central teaching of the Second Vatican Council is the universal call to holiness. For the large majority of Catholics, this means holiness is to be pursued (and can be attained) primarily in the everyday world of family, work, leisure, and politics, which inevitably influences contemporary culture. It may take until the end of this century for this first and primary role for the laity to be grasped and put into effect. Allen examines the dozens of lay movements that, approved by the Vatican, all with their proper charisms, personify this approach to the role of the laity in the Church. In some ways these movements can be likened to pre-Constantine Christians who put little emphasis on structure but rather lived their Christianity in their family life, work, friendship, and works of charity, inspired by a faith that made them willing to bear witness even until death. However, one need not be a member of a lay movement to live out fully one’s Christian faith in the world.
In second place are the lay ministries referred to earlier by Allen. They are most needed in the Catholic South, where there are relatively few priests for the exploding Catholic populations of the southern Continents, leaving dire need for catechists, teachers, leaders of Scripture study, etc. The danger in the developed North, however, is that lay ministers can think, in outmoded clerical terms, that they constitute more of the Church because they work inside the institutional Church of parishes, schools, chanceries, etc.
I have only briefly examined three of the trends, leaving the other seven for you to judge when you read this book. Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or Muslim, it will give you a much deeper insight into this third-millennial Church that, whatever your vantage point, shows no current signs of disproving its Founder’s prophecy that it will remain with us until the end of time.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (134) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Matthew Kenefick
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/17/the-future-is-now
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.10 @ 7:39AM
Mathew,
I wish the Roman Church well in their efforts.
Emphasis upon a "decision" to personally follow Jesus certainly points them in the right direction.
may God bless their efforts.
Alan Brooks| 8.17.10 @ 8:36AM
"Certainly many factors [snip]"
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the most important factor.
Alan Brooks| 8.17.10 @ 5:29PM
... IMO, naturally.
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 8:14AM
I think that it's somewhat implicit in the article, but I wonder if it's spelled out in the book;
The simple and profound message of the Gospel needs to be proclaimed.
I think too often religious prognosticators and thinkers and theologians get too lost in details and structures and such and miss the basic point of the entire Bible:
Man is a sinner in need of a Saviour, and that Saviour could only be found in the death and resurrection of Christ.
PJ| 8.17.10 @ 10:24AM
John Allen explains the possible ways the Church will re-evangelize its people locally. He also make the case on how Catholicism will grow based on demographic data.
michigander_sandusky| 8.17.10 @ 8:20AM
The author lost men when he made the tired and baseless claim that the Catholic Church "brought us the Bible." The reverse is true for those that know history and the book itself.
ton| 8.17.10 @ 10:29AM
Oh, I remember now; the Bible dropped down from heaven in 1611; written in beautiful King James English.
As we say in the rarified air of the Backwoods Kentucky Theological Seminary, "if it ain't King James; it ain't Bible."
Alan Brooks| 8.17.10 @ 8:43AM
C'mon Sandusky, you know Kenefick meant the Catholic Church did much to publicize the scripture.
Derek Leaberry| 8.17.10 @ 8:45AM
At Ascension, Jesus left us the Roman Catholic Church and the Apostles to spread His word. Those who do not believe so must logically believe that Jesus erred when He formed the Apostles. Could Jesus have made a mistake when He made Peter the first Pope? Of course not.
Dan Hirsch| 8.17.10 @ 9:07AM
Uh, Derek, one little point:
The only non-sinner to ever lead the Christian faith was Christ Himself. Peter and all of his successors have been sinners. To conclude that Peter and his millenia long line of successors must have never erred, failed, or led their earthly Church astray understands neither men nor God.
The concept of Jesus Christ making a "mistake," that is, God making a "mistake" is nonsensical.
By the way, the Catholic Church did much to preserve the Bible in the millenium and a half before Gutenburg made it affordable and Martin Luther reluctantly pried it out of the Catholic hierarchy's firm grip and held it open for all to see, read, and understand.
Christ spoke in plain words, the Catholic Church of late, not so much.
Semper fidelis.
Derek Leaberry| 8.17.10 @ 12:02PM
Of course, God can not make a mistake. But Protestantism itself is based on the premise that He mistakenly gave Peter and His Apostles orders to build the Roman Catholic Church. That is why Protestantism is a heresy.
Doctor Right| 8.17.10 @ 9:09AM
100% incorrect.
The vast majority of Catholic doctrine is NOT found anywhere in the New Testament.
Jesus did NOT form the Roman Catholic Church, nor did Peter. The Roman Catholic Church was NOT formed at the ascension.
Peter was NEVER a Pope. EVER. There is no scriptural justification for the role of the Papacy.
Jesus did NOT err.
However, men who have purposefully twisted and distorted HIS words since he ascended to Heaven have erred, and continue to do so today.
This includes the Catholic Church, which was formed by Emperor Constantine on the metaphorical bones of the paganistic, idolatrous religion of Rome (Jupiter, Apollo, Juno, etc).
For example, what Catholics like to call "Saints" in little more than a substitute for the pantheon of Roman gods. It is clear from scripture that the word "saints" refers to ALL believing, baptized Christians.
Catholics tie themselves in knots trying to justify their religion. They misquote scripture, take it out of context, or intentionally distort it's meaning.
Among the religions that consider themselves as Christian, Catholics often possess the most shallow understanding of scripture, and this is intentional. Rome understands that the more people read scripture (instead of the faith and traditions that Cathoilcs elevate to equivalent status), the less people will adhere to Catholic doctrine.
In summation, to be critical of Catholic doctrine is NOT to assume that Jesus "erred". It confirms that He most certainly did NOT err.
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 9:38AM
I can point toward people in every denomination with shallow understandings of scripture. Modern evangelicals, for instance, are often unaware that the movement started at the turn of the 20th Century, and can often rely on a rather simplistic exegesis of scripture.
Mainline Christianity has similar faults with its modern inauthenticity and misunderstanding of the Gospel.
Misquoting scripture is found in practically every church at some point - particularly ones who tend toward topical (as opposed to expositional, though often mistakes are made there as well) preaching. Ever quote Jeremiah 29:11 on its own? Any part of Acts to prove Pentecostalism? Any part of the Bible to promote Word-Faith views or Prosperity Theology?
I DO think that Catholicism has some historical misuses of scripture that it's held from close to its beginning (Sola fide and how grace is dispensed being my primary issues with their theology), but you have far too much vitriol and I wonder if you even know any Catholics. I've known and worshiped with several who were good, knowledgeable, and faithful to Christ and the Gospel.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.10 @ 9:46AM
Doctor Right,
You are correct of course, but unnecesarily harsh in your terseness, perhaps.
As the article pointed out, the Roman Church just may be trying to reform itself. ie: instead of counting on a long line of "Apostles" and creeds for salvation...they are now talking "personal decisions" to follow Christ.
We can only cheer for that effort.
Tim*| 8.17.10 @ 4:52PM
Doctor Reich has a serial anti-Catholic Agenda Goin' .
Let him take up his hang up with his Catholic Mommy & Daddy .
ton| 8.17.10 @ 10:16AM
God help us! I thought this type of ignorant bigotry and hate-filled fatuity might have dissipated with the self-immolation of protestantism.
Welcome to the logical devolution of the "me and my god" theology: vapid emotionalism or (like this guy) deluded vindictiveness .
Maybe a cousin of Amapajamadad in Tehran.
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 10:26AM
"Me and my God" theology? That's a new term...care to explain?
ton| 8.17.10 @ 10:41AM
Sure. Once I throw out the Apostolic Church, the Sacraments, the Priesthood, the Papacy, Holy Tradition, the Saints, The Intercession of the Virgin, the Patristic Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, the Creeds, the authoritative Encyclicals, and the Church Doctors, I am left with . . .
Me and my God, and my own interpretation of scripture; I have replaced Papal Infallibility with Personal Infallibility; I have become my own self-authenticating authority. I have become (in a logical culmination of sola fides and protestantism) my own church (currently 30,000 sects and counting).
Me and my God, sadly and inevitably,becomes me and . . . ME.
Thanks be to God for the preservation and proclamation of His Word through His Church since the beginning.
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 11:09AM
I'm enjoying throwing the word "overstatement" around today, but I suppose it fits.
First off, as a Protestant, I don't "throw out" at least some of what you said - Church councils, creeds, and Doctors (the Reformation is practically born out of Augustine); the Apostolic Church (where the idea of "universal" church is held); and a paring down of what you stated to their essential elements.
It breaks it down to the only crucial element in scripture - the Gospel - Christ's death, burial, and resurrection as payment for our sins.
"Personal infallibility?" I don't recall hearing that from many evangelical pulpits.
I think that there's ALMOST an argument in the personal interpretation of scripture - far too often do we try and apply it to our particular circumstances out of context, and often ignore the history as to how certain interpretations came about; however, there CAN be personal applicability - we just have to be careful.
Derek Leaberry| 8.17.10 @ 12:05PM
So what was Peter? A dishonest con man? A usurperer? A religious bounder?
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 2:12PM
You're using a form of bad logic called a "false dichotomy."
We are not presenting Peter as a fraud. Most Protestants acknowledge him as essentially the first leader of the Church with some authority, but placing him as the head - and his successors as well - as the heads of all Christianity (and, sometimes, as the One True Church) - is a stretch both of early Christian history and Scripture as well.
Riley Kinney| 8.17.10 @ 4:25PM
Same old lies about the Roman Catholic Church. You must stop reading those heretical Chick booklets.
Alan Brooks| 8.17.10 @ 5:21PM
"Peter was NEVER a Pope. EVER. There is no scriptural justification for the role of the Papacy."
Peter was The Rock to build His Church on.
If that isn't being a Pope, then what is?
W.L. Barton| 8.23.10 @ 1:10PM
Ignorance abounds in this Spectacle joint.
When you read the New Testament remember 3 simple things, who is speaking, to whom are they speaking, and what is the subject matter.
When in Matthew 22, Jese ask Peter to respond to a question, The question was, "Peter, who am I?" Peter answered, "you are the Christ". Jesus answered, "Heaven and Earth ha not revealed this truth to you, but the Holy Spirit has. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, i will build my church".
For those with a brain, Jesus was not saying the person Peter would be the church, but the statement that Jesus is the Christ, and that belief is the key to the Kingdom.
If you follow you ignorants logic, in the next sentence, when Peter is jealous of John and pesters Jesus about John, Jesus says "get thee behind me Satan". So is Peter the head of the church or Satan?
I doubt any of you Mammon worshipping fools here can even follow logic, and i am growing weary of wasting my time here, but if you wanna tangle, i blog at The Daily Kos, under the moniker WhiningRepug.
Goodbye and good riddance fools.
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 9:29AM
Ugh. Looks like I'm jumping in to address two "partisan" overstatements.
To draw the conclusion about "logically believing that Jesus erred" isn't...logical.
Jesus left us "the Church." Not the Roman Catholic Church - just the "small c" catholic (ie universal) church. He never made it to Rome Himself.
Most of your arguments are conclusions that are just a little bit of a logical stretch, one taken about a step too far.
Jesus didn't give Peter SOLE authority - it's probably more accurate that He gave all the Apostles similar authority.
Alan Brooks| 8.17.10 @ 5:23PM
You are bending over backwards to say Peter wasn't the first Pope.
Alan Brooks| 8.17.10 @ 5:26PM
.. it's like an Islamic writing, "Mohammed wasn't the Messenger of Allah."
To what purpose?
Ryan| 8.18.10 @ 8:33AM
No, just giving good reasons why he may not have been.
Would you rather I have said "Peter wasn't the first Pope" and not explained anything with evidence?
A Good Summary| 8.17.10 @ 9:49AM
I, for one, will not "be one" with Roman Catholicism as long as it claims to have authority above that of the Bible--an egregious error from which all other Catholic errors spring.
As the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (www.carm.org), among many others, explains, salvation is obtained by grace through faith in believing in Jesus alone, who is God in flesh. Salvation isn’t found in making up for past sins by efforts of restoration, or penance, or indulgences. None of us can ever be good enough to please God. No one can earn forgiveness. Salvation isn’t administered to us through an earthly Catholic priest by the sprinkling of water, or giving of penance, or recitation of formulaic prayers, or by trying to be good enough.
“[Those errors] can only lead to … a desperate and unwarranted dependence on the Roman Catholic Church as the only means by which salvation can be distributed and maintained. In this error, people far too often seek to work their way to heaven by being good, by doing what the Catholic church teaches them to do, by prayers to Mary, by indulgences, by the Rosary, and by a host of other man-made works. Remember, in the RCC, salvation is through the Church and its sacraments, not through Jesus alone, by faith alone. This is exactly how the cults of Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses work …[they] teach that true salvation is found only in their church membership and in following the revelation and authority of their church teachers and traditions.
“In great contrast to the position of the Roman Catholic Church, if you want to be forgiven of your sins, once and for all, then you need to come to Christ (Matt. 11:28). You need to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior (John 1:12; Rom. 10:13). You need to ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins (John 14:14), and trust in Him alone and in nothing that you can do. Remember, your good deeds have no merit before God (Isa. 64:6). Furthermore, if you have faith, it is because that faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29). If you believe, it is because God has granted that you believe (Phil. 1:29). It is not because you were baptized, or have been good, or have been sincere. It is all of God. The Lord must receive all the glory for salvation because it completely and totally rests in Him. Salvation rests in Christ alone and it is received by faith apart from works.”
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 10:31AM
First off, I'm more or less a Reformed Baptist.
Second, I think that the above is at least partially derived from the standard Protestant mischaracterization of what Catholics believe based on both observation of bad Catholics and misunderstanding of what is going on. It leads to an overstatement of Catholic beliefs.
Yes, I think that there are many (most?) Catholics that essentially believe what you wrote, and I think that there has been a large failure of the RCC in teaching is membership about the proper understanding.
ELADAVE| 8.17.10 @ 4:08PM
Well put!
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.10 @ 5:42PM
A Good Summary,
Could not have stated it better...
AMEN...AMEN...OMEGA!
Margie| 8.17.10 @ 8:31PM
To A Good Summary:
The hatred! The vitriol! The bigotry! Oh my! How dare you!
Tim*| 8.17.10 @ 9:29PM
Do Your Homework Anti-Catholic Creep .
http://www.catholic.com/librar.....tholic.asp
PJ| 8.17.10 @ 9:59AM
I've read this book & I have to say it would be very much an eye-opener for Catholics & non-Catholics who want to try to understand the political nature of the Church & why & how it responds to outside & w/in events. I view this book as a sociological & anthropological study of a religious organization.
It is not theologically based although it helps to have a little knowledge of Christian-Catholic theology & to have some knowledge of general Christian & European history.
John Allen is very good at describing objectively the various groups w/in the Church vying for dominance. He uses a lot of easy-to-understand demographic data to make his case. He also tries to explain possible future relationships the Church will have w/those such as Muslims, governments..., directly interacting w/its people. I also appreciate how Allen explains why the Roman Catholic Church under current circumstances will never have an American pope. His reasoning is sound & I will not delve into it. You just have to read the book.
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 10:25AM
"Internally lay people are occupying ministerial and administrative positions once held almost exclusively by priests. Externally, lay people are taking it upon themselves to evangelize culture and to act on Catholic social teaching. It is this one-two punch, lay ministers inside the Church and lay activists on the outside, that constitutes the trend."
Would that all denominations got this, btw. That evangelism - in whatever form - is the duty and privilege and joy of EVERY Christian, not just the ordained.
ton| 8.17.10 @ 10:51AM
With all respect, these posts are like the flea offering advice to the elephant; or the leaking and splintering rowboat offering a line to the Queen Mary as she steams by.
All that is true and good in protestantism (and there is much) comes from the Catholic Church; all who are saved are saved by the blood of Christ offered for the salvation of the world through His Holy Sacraments. There can be no contradiction between His Word and His Church.
You may not like your mother; but she is still your mother.
(btw. the Church is not a denomination, this is a neologism from the 16th century.
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 11:16AM
There's where we depart - that salvation comes through administration of the Holy Sacraments.
I think I stated in a previous post that there is one of the issues I have - and that was one of the main reasons for the Reformation - that Grace comes directly from God through Jesus Christ in a more spiritual sense rather than a possible over-literal reading of what the body and blood are.
Jeremiah| 8.17.10 @ 2:14PM
Hey Ryan...tom overstated a bit on his 'salvation of the world through His Holy Sacraments..." line.
Salvation comes through Christ, period. The sacraments are helps, formally defined as visible signs of God's grace. Jesus was big on sacraments...most of His healings were accompanied by the laying on of hands, applying mud to a wound, some physical sign of what He was doing. The healing did not come through these visible physical signs, but through Christ. I understand what Tom meant but I don't think he was exactly precise. We love our children...and often express that love with a caress or a hug. The caress or hug is not the love, but a physical sign of it...and we people need that physical sign. By the same token, people can also feel when a caress or hug is a sham. Without the love behind it, it is meaningless. I may weigh in more tonight....rather tied up today.
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 3:51PM
Here's the problem - if I do not weekly receive Holy Communion from a Priest, what is the state of my soul if I yet proclaim Christ?
Jeremiah| 8.17.10 @ 6:07PM
Based on the things you write here I would say your soul is in very good shape, indeed, though only God knows with certainty.
The thing is, the obligation to receive weekly at Mass does not apply to non-Catholics. Don't misunderstand, that does not make you children of a lesser God. A priest who is very dear to me once pushed me to be somewhat more aggressive in evangelizing. I gently refused, telling him that divisions are so longstanding that I am convinced God has his purposes for everyone - and though I believe the Catholic Church is His in its fulmess, that there is great need for good people throughout the world and in every nook and cranny. So it seems logical to me that God might withold from some that the RCC is His Church in its fulness, that others may have great and compassionate leaders. To dismiss them because they are not in communion with the Catholic Church is to misunderstand both the reach and the mercy of God. Someone who is authentically Christian but in another faith community should follow those lawful strictures of that tradition, not mine. Remember, after the temple it says that Jesus was obedient to Mary and Joseph as He grew in goodness and grace. In Christianity obedience is not the submission of the lesser to the greater; often it is exactly the opposite. In Christianity, lawful obedience is a means of opening up profound channels of grace.
I know this: God calls all men to salvation, every one. I believe my father, an evangelical pastor - who I encouraged when the call came to him, is in a position to help Christ in that call to salvation. Would he be if he were in the Catholic Church? I don't know. What I do know is that he is a good man who loves God. That is enough for me to know. Christ knows where the good Godly men are best placed to recover and minister to souls. I don't, so I leave it at that.
My priest friend did drop the subject and even encouraged me to continue doing whatever it is I do. Thanks be to God, there are over 100 souls who have given me some credit for their conversion, without me ever trying to convert anyone. I should note that about 20 or so of those are people who were alienated from their own church and re-established their faith in that tradition - some Lutherans, Baptists and Methodists among them. It is enough to know that they are in communion with God. As long as that is so, He will take them where He needs them. As the priest said, Our Lord says you will know a tree by the fruit it bears - and so he leaves me alone on that subject because of the fruitfulness. Don't ask me what it is I do. I don't have a clue except maybe that I try to see what is best in people, what is most Godly in them...and it seems that sometimes they see it in themselves simply because someone else recognized it.
I trust in the mercy and love of God. I believe the fulness of truth is held in trust in the Catholic Church. In heaven we will know all truth. Thus, I believe everyone in heaven will be Catholic. However, I also believe that a whole heap of those heavenly Catholics will have been Methodists, Lutherans, Jews, Buddhists and even atheists while they were on this earth. Thus Christ's promise that many will be surprised when He welcomes them into the kingdom as good and faithful servants. It is not those who say the right things that are authentic Christians, but those who do the right things. (Matthew 21:28-32).
Forgive my rambling reply, but I think this subject often degenerates into dry legalisms. Christ specifically taught that the sort of legalisms being propounded by the Pharisaical sect would not avail...it is a clean heart that would reach the Lord. I see no reason to believe it is any different today.
Ryan| 8.18.10 @ 8:36AM
There's a lot of hardline Catholics, I think, that would disagree with you there. You may even be at odds with some "official" Catholic doctrine.
I appreciate your postings, however - you're one of the more engaging on religious topics.
I think I like feeding trolls too much.
Jeremiah| 8.18.10 @ 9:16AM
Thanks Ryan. I know I am not at odds with official Catholic teaching. One of my mentors is an internationally regarded canon lawyer. In my everyday work I have advised and collaborated with bishops and other authorities on various matters of the faith. Anything I write anything publicly under my own name that is innovative on these matters, I submit it first to make sure nothing in it is contrary to faith and morals (that is, official teaching). Everything I write here is absolutely on point.
But you hit on it earlier - something I have complained of frequently. We Catholics have the best infrastructure to catechize our faithful - and yet our faithful are among the most poorly catechized of any faith tradition I know.
For five years I taught people coming in to the Church. There was one presentation I would give during the year which would draw people from throughout the parish. It was kind of cool. We once had to move to a different hall so many people showed up. I will concede that, on occasion I would be challenged on things such as this. Then I would demonstrate from the Bible, the Catechism and the Church Fathers that it was not incorrect. On the edgier stuff, like I say, I always vet it first. So whatever anyone tells you, what I wrote above is Catholic doctrine.
PJ| 8.18.10 @ 9:36AM
Jeremiah states correctly. What he writes is in the Catechism with the biblical & early Church fathers citations. Good luck with your search for the Truth.
IzeHavitt| 8.18.10 @ 12:53AM
This ex-Catholic will try and solve your problem, Ryan. First, salvation is achieved by confessing Jesus Christ as Lord, and believing in one's heart that God raised Him from the dead (see Romans 10:9). Further, according to Ephesians 2:10, "we are saved by grace and not of works, lest any should boast". Therein lies the Catholic problem: like the Pharisees and Sadducees of old, they teach for doctrine the traditions of men, and make of none effect the Word of God". No one is saved by works. Period. It's all by grace, yea,"it is the gift of God". Confessing Romans 10:9 gets you sonship (see also I John 3:2); fellowship is a different matter entirely. If it enhances your fellowship with God to receive communion, that's fine. But that has zero to do with your salvation. These posts also confirm this writers long held view that there is a lot of misunderstandings out there about matters spiritual. The cure? Learn the Word, and learn it accurately. Why? For starters, that's what Jesus did.
mbd| 8.17.10 @ 10:44AM
National Catholic Register? I don't think so. Try National Catholic Reporter. His is the sole rational voice on an otherwise ideologically leftist publication.
Petronius| 8.17.10 @ 10:52AM
There will be little progress until the Holy Office reconciles altruism with reality on the ground and discards it's pilferage of Will Hutton's Declaration of Interdependence as a basis for "social teaching". And candy ass clerics need to be replaced with Men.
Remember Nero asking me "Are you a Christian?" in Quo Vadis? Remember my answer?
drpence| 8.17.10 @ 10:58AM
Mr Allen is the Vatican correspondent for National Catholic Reporter not the National Catholic Register. Except for Allen, the Nat Catholic Reporter is a non stop stream of dissent, pacifism and feminism. They often treat utterly fradulent ordination services for catholic women as news events all in th name of being 'prophetic".
The National Catholic Register(no relation to Allen or the other paper) is owned by the Legionnairres of Christ uterly orthodox in its reporting but avoiding all actually reporting of malfeasance by real clerics with real names. They are very different newspapers. A correction would be worth the trouble. .
Derek Leaberry| 8.17.10 @ 12:09PM
Mr. Allen is a liberal albeit with an outstanding amount of sources. It is curious that he appears to take little interest in the Latin Mass, the current Pope's favored form of Mass apparently.
mbd| 8.17.10 @ 2:44PM
I believe that he is now the former Vatican correspondent, though still with the Reporter (a/k/a the Fishwrap)
drgene| 8.17.10 @ 1:29PM
This top 10 trends sounds like the 10 Regressions:a Catholicism abandoning it's 3 distinctive pillars of religious authenticity:
1. Jesus as norma non normata vs biblicism (the Bible!)and/or magisterial hegemony(the pope/bishops!)
2. Academic scholarship & religious wisdom
as the norm of all beliefs vs fideism(s) &
fundamentalism(s) & evangelicalism(s)
3. Monastic spirituality in pursuit of the
center of Jesus new religion:the inner journey
of one's spirit into unions with ABBA vs
socio-political brothers/sisters "social
gospel" of "social justice" as the ultimate
purpose of Jesus new religion.
Without these Three Catholicism is a hollow
shell, a shadow of itself eclipsed by Hindu &
Buddhist spirituality and loser in a race with a rabid Islam's reincarnation of the Old Religion
model Jesus came to replace!!
If the CHURCH becomes it's own center, JESUS,and each individual's own spiritual-
religious journey to being one with The Eternal One as each one's own True Father?
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 2:06PM
Could you rewrite? It doesn't make any sense.
James| 8.17.10 @ 1:51PM
Peter / Petros - read it, Peter was no more the "rock on which I build my church" than my dog was. If Peter was a sinner (maybe denying his Lord three times) how could he POSSIBLY be the kind of "rock" on which Christ would build His church?!!?
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 2:03PM
Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Christ used some VERY interesting phraseology here that we have to pay attention to.
In one sense, Peter WAS a sort of rock - his actions at Pentecost and with the early church were instrumental in its spread. The first part of the book of Acts is practically his story. "Peter" was the name that was given to him by Christ, so to disavow any sort of connection there doesn't seem to line up with scripture.
Otherwise, why would Christ have named him Peter? Through what other agency is the Word supposed to be spread other than by sinful - yet saved - people?
In another sense, the use of the word "this" by Christ grammatically refers to the phrase that Peter uttered, and not necessarily Peter himself - an interpretation which is valid and which the RCC seemed to have missed.
Jeremiah| 8.17.10 @ 2:25PM
What is most interesting, Ryan, is that there is no record of 'Rock' ever being used as a name before Jesus gave it to Peter. (Peter is the Anglicized form of petros - Greek for rock and cephas - Aramaic for rock). Peter is the only human name given to us by Christ, Himself. Interesting and worthy of contemplation, isn't it.
As for your comment about 'this' rock...the Church certainly has considered it. A verbatim translation of the line would read, substantially, "I say to you that you are Rock, and on this rock..." I believe it tortures logic to suggest an alternate meaning other than the obvious one.
Interestingly, it used to puzzle me why Christ made the rather emotional. rather erratic Peter the first pope when the cool and prudent John was right there. It occurred to me that, whatever his flaws, Peter loved greatly - and that if the Church flourished under Peter, it would be hard to argue it was by anything other than the power of Christ. Under John, its flowering might have been attributed to John's wisdom.
Margie| 8.17.10 @ 3:46PM
Every single word that Dr. Right said is the truth. Harsh? Vitriolic? The truth hurts but~
"Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy." Prov. 27:6.
Do you want someone willing to lie to you on the way to Hell with niceties or a truth telling individual to save you from said journey?
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 3:50PM
Maybe telling the truth nicely would work.
I don't know that I've ever seen someone converted or convinced through meanness, insults, and vitriol.
Margie| 8.17.10 @ 3:56PM
So how do you tell someone that they are going to Hell unless they repent and accept Christ "nicely?" Spare me. No one is truly converted unless they hear the truth first. It isn't "mean" "insulting" or "vitriolic."
That's just an excuse used to shut someone up. Or try to.
People are converted upon hearing the truth spoken by fearless Christians, not namby pamby half baked half truths.
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 4:11PM
I've had several conversations with people where I've been able to share the basic message that they're a sinner in need of a Saviour. I even brought up Hell and eternal damnation.
My own conversion was similar. I was presented with the Gospel continually growing up. No one had to yell in my face and HATE me into heaven.
I don't have to yell at them, browbeat them, call fire and brimstone down, or anything of that sort. Christ never did - all He did was point to man's sinfulness. The ONLY time He got violent was in clearing the temple of moneychangers because they were preventing Gentiles from closer access to God.
I just have to give the Message and let the Holy Spirit do His Work.
What have I stated that was untrue here?
Margie| 8.17.10 @ 4:20PM
I already said it. The accusations of "hatred" and "vitriol" when there is none.
~End.
Ryan| 8.18.10 @ 8:40AM
The accusations of paganism and blatantly misinterpreting scripture I read as being incendiary. The tone of his posts appeared that way, that he was lecturing without love.
Of course, there's a handful of pro-RCC posters around here doing the same thing...
Margie| 8.18.10 @ 11:07AM
"The accusations of paganism and blatantly misinterpreting scripture I read as being incendiary. The tone of his posts appeared that way, that he was lecturing without love."
Ryan,
You ought to love the truth more than be a respecter of persons. That's what God requires of us. Wherever the truth is spoken it is to be served, no matter who says it or whether or not you may approve of their delivery.
The truth is that there is so much false doctrine in Catholicism you have to be willfully blind in order not to see it. And especially if you have been enlightened by God's Spirit. Unless you haven't been? There are some who have been deceived and there are some who willfully deceive others and I will take no part.
"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." Eph. 5:11.
Ryan| 8.18.10 @ 11:51AM
Sorry, I've simply known too many spirit-filled Catholics to adhere to your viewpoint.
We ALL have something wrong with our doctrine/theology. We're human, so at BEST our understanding is limited.
If I held your view, I would believe that there weren't any real Christians for 1500 years. It wasn't the guys on the street who couldn't read during that time who pondered over and discussed and settled the principles of the Christian faith in that time (the principles were laid out initially in scripture, but it took a lot longer to really hammer them out and truly figure their meaning).
If that isn't the end conclusion of what you believe, how am I wrong?
Seeing as how God promised Abraham quite a few "children," I think that viewpoint is very wrong.
Margie| 8.18.10 @ 7:15PM
Ryan,
You are deceitful in your comment as I was not saying that individuals are not Spirit filled or not. I am saying that the doctrines of Catholicism are false and unBiblical and that many, many are led astray by them. If somebody is shown the Bible and then continues on to defend the false doctrine then be careful because you may just be found opposing Him.
Now you can accuse me of being ever so nasty for saying this but then I don't live to please man.
Ryan| 8.19.10 @ 2:20PM
Was it logical for me to draw the conclusion - from your posts - that if the doctrines of Catholicism are as false as you purport, then that Catholics can in no way be Spirit-filled? Was it too much of a stretch?
That is what I am drawing from your posts. I am in no way attempting to deceive.
Margie| 8.19.10 @ 2:34PM
"I am in no way attempting to deceive."
Yes, you are.
Tim*| 8.17.10 @ 4:55PM
Uh Oh ! Apocalyptic Crank Lady ,Margie is off to the races again.
Now tell us about Jews & Muslims , Crank Lady .
Margie| 8.17.10 @ 8:55PM
Ok~
"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.
If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel. "
-Benjamin Netanyahu
Tim*| 8.17.10 @ 10:53PM
Now , tell all the AS readers where your Personal Crank Apocalyptic Religion Of One says practicing Jews and Muslims go when they die .
Apparently , You're Apocalyptic Israel Firster Agenda is using Jews and Muslims to carry out your personal interpretation of The Apocalypse .
Ryan| 8.18.10 @ 8:41AM
Now, you're being incendiary.
It's not a "Personal Crank Apocalyptic Religion Of One" to see the Bible as genuinely stating that those who don't know Christ are Hell-bound.
Margie| 8.18.10 @ 10:59AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y
LOL. AS removed this this morning, so I'm reposting it.
Susaj| 8.18.10 @ 11:15AM
Very good biblical responses. Bless you.
Ryan| 8.17.10 @ 3:48PM
The problem is the grammar, in two specific points:
1. The "this" in 16:18 is gender neutral, which means it may NOT have referred to Peter, and rather to the statement that he made.
2. The "you" in 16:19 appears to be plural - which means Jesus may have been talking to the apostles as a whole rather than specifically Peter.
The other side is this - there's no Biblical record of Peter "officially" passing the position on to someone else. It's church Tradition instead.
However, what DOES stick is the name Peter was given, which is behind most of the confusion, I think.
And actually, I don't know that I have all that big a problem with the idea of a Church "head" - in a sense, the Pope IS the representative of Christianity to the rest of the world.
My problem with the RCC continually boils down to theology - the idea that my salvation is dependant upon works - which is what the Sacraments as Catholics hold them boil down to - simply doesn't hold water when compared to the entirety of scripture, no matter what interpretation. Also, the idea of penance and purgatory just don't seem to fit in with a God Who claimed "it is finished."
Jeremiah| 8.17.10 @ 6:35PM
Fair enough, Ryan. I don't agree with your interpretation - and I still think you have to torture the facts a bit to get there - but it is not an implausible interpretation.
As for the business between faith and works, this is just a bloody mess. I have seen Catholics who think that by saying the requisite number of Hail Mary's, Glory Be's, and Our Father's, they are good to go. It is the same sort of legalism that Pharasaical Judaism had degenerated to and that Jesus was crushing. I have also seen Protestants who touted the 'once-saved always-saved' doctrine who think they can whore around, lie, cheat and steal and they are good to go.
The doctrine of faith alone cannot stand unless you toss out James 2:14-26, which Martin Luther wanted to do, calling it contemptuously the "straw epistle." Faith and works are inseparable. Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruit. Works are the unwavering fruit of authentic faith. Faith without works is a dead letter, as James said. But works without faith are a sham, like plastic fruit. However pretty they may seem, there is no life in them and they can give no life. They are inseparable. Anyone who claims the one will make up for the lack of the other deceives himself.
Finally, there is the enigmatic quotation of Paul in Colossians 1:24, speaking of how he is making up in his flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ. What could possibly be lacking in the afflictions of Christ? I pondered long on this and finally it dawned. The one thing God will not interfere in is our free-will. So the only thing lacking is our free-will response - both to imitate the Master and to share in His sorrows. So the gift of redemption is indeed finished. But it is up to each of us to accept it - and more than this to bring others to it. I have constant pain in my right side. I'm rather fond of it because I offer it up to Christ in penance for my sins and as an offering for those of others, that an abundance of grace might be called down. And I heartily believe that when we quietly accept a little suffering and unite it to that of Our Lord, floodgates of grace are opened.
As for purgatory, the simple truth is that it is envisioned as the place where what remaining stains are removed to prepare souls for heaven. Everyone in purgatory will go to heaven. It is simply the belief that most souls are not so radically alienated from God that they will go to hell, but are not sufficiently pure to go directly to heaven and so, in God's mercy, He prepares a place where the bulk of souls can be purified to fit them to heaven. I think it is a lovely act of faith in God's mercy. But it does not trouble me that another does not believe in it.
Ryan| 8.18.10 @ 8:29AM
On faith and works being inseparable, you're absolutely correct - I think that it's more a misunderstanding of the other side (from both ends) that comes along here.
I wonder if we would almost argue the same thing from different ends here. I believe heartily that true faith produces good works, but that those works cannot make me right with God nor earn favor (which I think separates the Catholic from the Protestant) - Ephesians makes that clear as well (by grace are you saved, through faith, not of works - it is the gift of God, etc..), so it must work in conjunction with James.
I honestly have not really met anyone who believes in eternal security ("once saved always saved" or however it's put) who believes in such license to engage in sinful behaviour - or at least Christians who openly state that they do while they may live that way.
On purgatory, I simply think that it's an idea that denegrates the work Jesus did on the Cross. There's too many scriptures that point to a completed work, that point to the idea that I am made right with God through Him that there isn't anything "extra" that I need to endure. It's Christ's blood that makes me pure and whole and able to enter into God's presence.
Also, I don't find "levels" of purity in scripture, either. We are either pure or we aren't.
David T.| 8.17.10 @ 5:09PM
After years of wandering in the desert of Protestant evangelicalism, I was led to inquire into the Catholic Church. When I did, I was "suprised by truth." I discovered the fullness of Christ and the beauty of the sacraments. I became a Catholic and never looked back. Read the "Bread of Life" discourse in John Chapter 6 with an open mind and a heart for the Spirit, and you'll begin to understand. Dominus vobiscum.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.17.10 @ 5:55PM
I will say it again.
I wish the Roman Church well in their efforts.
Peter is/was... never the Holy Spirit of God. The grace of God via the Holy Spirit is our only joy today, and our hope for eternity.
Romans and not..."The Comforter" Jesus sent is our joy and salvation.
Get over it.
...is a wafer offered by a dripping pedophile sacred?
Tim*| 8.17.10 @ 8:51PM
Get Over Your Anti-Catholic Agenda Old Man .
You Creeps keep lookin' for your Punch In The Mouth .
King Herod| 8.17.10 @ 10:12PM
I can feel the loooove.
Ryan| 8.18.10 @ 8:43AM
How would you convince me to become Catholic with such postings?
Derek Leaberry| 8.18.10 @ 9:01AM
Ken's a spiteful old drunk who finds it difficult to complete a grammatically correct sentence. Ignore him.
peregrinus| 8.17.10 @ 6:22PM
One correction: John Allen is the Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, not the National Catholic Register, a very big difference.
George VII| 8.17.10 @ 9:23PM
Is this Margie for real? She's so nasty and spiteful I am wondering if maybe she is just the invention of some liberal to discredit Bible-believing Christians. If not, please people, her type of hatred is not what we believe. And if she doesn't straighten out she will be one of those who, when standing to be judged, will be told by the Lord to depart from him for he never knew her.
Margie| 8.17.10 @ 9:30PM
"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." Jn. 8:44.
I tend to agree with Jesus on things.
George VII| 8.17.10 @ 10:00PM
You shouldn't talk to yourself like that Margie. You a kook but I really don't think your father is the devil.
Tim*| 8.17.10 @ 10:54PM
Obviously , Margie Is A Religious Crank with an agenda .
Margie| 8.18.10 @ 1:51AM
"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor. 1:18.
Night, Tim*.
Derek Leaberry| 8.18.10 @ 9:08AM
One last area of question. What do Protestants consider the period between the Ascension of Jesus and Martin Luther's rejection of Catholicism in 1517? Is it an empty, dark period? Is it an era of false Christianity, a time of Catholic fraud? Are the religious paintings of the Middle Ages also frauds, dishonest portrayals of Christianity?
Ryan| 8.18.10 @ 9:39AM
I think one of the problems is that many DON'T consider it at all.
I got interested in it simply because that's partially where my degree lies.
I consider that period to be more or less one of growth and consolidation, with more of a concern over politics (remember, most of AD the Pope was also a secular ruler) rather than faith and theology, with councils and such pretty much working over the more substantial issues.
Simply because there weren't any Protestants doesn't make the doctrine or actions of the RCC during that period correct. They pretty much stuck with what was decided in the first few centuries AD and ran with it - particularly in light there was more going on with the Fall of the Roman Empire, barbarians, wars, splintering countries, and international issues going on. Everything was just kind of stuck.
Education and dissemenation of the written word was material in the Reformation, remember - no printing press, no Reformation.
Derek Leaberry| 8.18.10 @ 10:07AM
Thank you for your considerate reply.
ton| 8.18.10 @ 11:04AM
Sorry Ryan, but your knowledge of early European history is as minimal as your grasp of Catholic theology, ecclesiology, ethics, etc.
If you are ever given the grace to recognize the Church as the Body of Christ in the world, you will then recognize, with a mixture of shame and amusement, the folly of your arguments, the smallness of your religion, and the egotism of your advocacy. You are setting up you private judgement against towering intellects, complex and centuries-long dogmatic developments, and the lives and witnesses of millions of saints and holy martyrs. A little humility is in order.
Many, many ex-protestants, myself included, have received that and realized, with great joy and gratitude, that God's Church is ever so much larger and more bountiful from the inside than from the outside looking in. We have moved from one small room, however comfortable and pleasing, into the entire mansion. And we will spend the rest of our lives exploring the riches and delights of that mansion.
And yes, although it may not please modern sensibilities to say so, all who are saved (even the many friends and relatives I left behind in the protestant churches) are saved by Christ through the Holy Catholic Church.
Susan| 8.18.10 @ 11:26AM
Do you think that people who do not see the RC Church as the means of salvation should be put to death? That was the practice of the Inquisition and during the Reformation.
Ryan| 8.18.10 @ 11:35AM
IOW, "I'm wrong and I'm an idiot."
How am I wrong?
Jeremiah| 8.18.10 @ 3:18PM
How strange. I, too, am an ex-Protestant. Yet I did not feel my conversion was a repudiation of the authentic Christianity that is in many Protestant faith traditions, but an embrace of the fulness of Christianity. I am deeply offended when a Catholic defames our separated brethren just because they are separated from us. Did you not hear Venerable John Paul the Great describe the Jews our "elder brothers in the faith."? If that is true (and it is) how much more so of the Protestants who are our separated brothers?
I came to the conclusion that Christ's promise that He would not allow even the gates of hell to prevail against His Church meant that, however decadent the authorities of the Catholic Church had become at the start of the Reformation, God remained with it, even as He was with the Israelites during their many periods of faithlessness. A Baptist Minister who is a dear friend told me, when we were discussing this point one afternoon, that he believed that the Reformation was HOW Christ preserved His Church. I disagree with his conclusion that the spirit passed away from Catholicism, but his interpretation does respect the Scripture involved. I actually came to agree with him in part because the Reformation was a powerful goad to the RCC to reform itself. And even so, as the divisions the Reformation created settled in, I do not think God witheld Himself from the authentic Christianity so many Protestants practice. In my mind it is not authenticity they lack, but fulness, a whole different matter.
And Susan, be careful of simple sloganeering. In just a few decades after Lutheranism swept Germany, over 100,000 people were burned as witches by Lutheran authorities. The Inquisition, the witch burnings, the back-and-forth pogroms in England and Ireland were stains on our common faith. It does no good to compare how many Judases we each have had. It is sadly too many. But it is facile to cite the Judases on one side in an attempt to discredit it without recognizing the Judases on the other.
lillith| 8.18.10 @ 11:31PM
Peace be unto you. Remember what John tells us - God is love. God's ways are not our ways. Your love is abundant and apparent.
David T.| 8.18.10 @ 11:07AM
Ryan--I agree there are too many unkind words from both sides on these postings. I hope you take this reponse in the irenic spirit in which I intend it to be offered: Christ founded a church that was real and visible, to be led by flesh-and-blood men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Study the Church Fathers and you will find that they were almost to the man Catholic in their faith and practice. Through the ages, the Church grew in power and significance. It had its problems (theological disputes, politics, wars) and its setbacks (Islam), but by the latter middle ages it had built the the greatest civilization the world has ever known. The Renaissance would never have happened without the Catholic Church. The Reformation that followed was necessary to purge some odious Church practices, and the Council of Trent corrected them, but as happens too often in revolutions, the radicals took over and changed the character of the reform. The result was the splintering of Christendom, which is still going on today. Christ's Church is no longer one, primarily because Protestants rejected the authority of the Chair of St. Peter. The world is crumbling today, and I fear the U.S. as we know and love it will not survive. The only bulwark against the Gates of Hell is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church--the Catholic Church that Christ himself founded. Laus tibi, Christe.
Margie| 8.18.10 @ 11:15AM
Lies. Catholicism with its false and deceitful and un Biblical doctrines have led millions and millions astray and continues to do so through people like you spouting lies.
Jesus Himself is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no man can come to the Father (God) except by Him. Jn. 14:6.
You are a liar!
Ryan| 8.18.10 @ 11:43AM
I disagree.
He's NOT being deliberately deceitful with malicious intent. He's not "lying."
I think he's just wrong in his facts. Being wrong doesn't make one a liar.
Margie| 8.18.10 @ 7:04PM
If a grown man speaks lies it makes him a liar.
Ryan| 8.19.10 @ 8:20AM
Was he wrong or being deliberately deceitful?
Derek Leaberry| 8.18.10 @ 2:56PM
O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, lead all souls to Heaven especially those most in need of Thy mercy.
Ryan| 8.18.10 @ 11:41AM
The first half, you're more or less right.
The second half...not so much. "The greatest civilization" is a very subjective opinion, I think. Yes, we wouldn't have had modern science and the Renessaince without the RCC, but there wasn't a singular core "civilization" then - Europe was very fractured with petty wars going on all over the place, much less what the various plagues did.
I also debate the stance the RCC as the "only bulwark." Look around and see churches on Sunday mornings in many parts of America - and the world. Plenty of Protestant ones are full, and the spread of the Gospel is growing - NOT shrinking, as Christ said it would (he essentially proclaimed the end will come when the Word reaches to every people group).
Margie| 8.18.10 @ 11:11AM
There is no such thing as Purgatory. It is one of the many false doctrines of Catholicism. It isn't in the Bible. Either you want to be Biblical, or you don't. "Choose this day." Jos. 24:15.
Derek Leaberry| 8.18.10 @ 12:18PM
Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve, to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy towards us. And after this our exile, show unto us the Blessed Fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, o loving, o sweet Virgin Mary. Pray for us, o Holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. Amen.
Susan| 8.18.10 @ 12:27PM
Mary weepse because you have elevated above her Son and Savior Jesus Christ. She is not a co-redemptrix. Show the Scriptures to support your view.
PJ | 8.18.10 @ 12:50PM
Please go to the EWTN website & search for co-redemptrix in its library. You'll find all the documents have biblical citations, both New & Old Testaments. BTW Catholics do not elevate Mary above her Son nor do they proclaim that she is equal to her Son.
Margie| 8.18.10 @ 7:22PM
Mary is dead, Derek. She doesn't hear you.
"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 2 Tim. 2:5 & 6.
Do you want to be Biblical? Or do you want to be deceived?
Susan| 8.18.10 @ 12:24PM
You have passion, but are coming across as unloving because the hearts posting are blinded by love of false religion and self-righteousness through works.
PJ| 8.18.10 @ 1:01PM
Please go to the EWTN website & search for purgatory in its library. You'll find all the documents have biblical citations, both from the New & Old Testaments. If you are going to hate the Catholic Church & you obviously do, at least do a little research to find out where its gets its ideas, that you hate, from. BTW, these ideas all originate from the bible.
David T.| 8.18.10 @ 1:48PM
So much Catholic bashing on this site makes me realize I made the right choice when I joined the Catholic Church. There, you don't find such hatred and vitriol against their separated Christian brethen.
ton| 8.18.10 @ 2:46PM
Amen, David.
Actually, Catholics spend very little time worrying about the latest schism in the ever-splintering and increasingly irrelevant world of protestantism. After all, the only thing that unites our separated brethren is that they are separated from the fullness of Truth. They are ultimately defined by the fact that they are not Catholic (in spite of how much they dislike each other).
May God show them the way back home as the sands of modernity and the protestant experiment collapse around them.
billadams | 8.18.10 @ 4:20PM
One of the newest approaches to The Church is Catholic Fundamentalism, which puts forth the idea that God, (The Unprogrammed Programmer) is able to program particles, compile them into systems and beings, and download them into The Creation Program. Makes Catholicism and Fundamentalism into the partners they are.
George VII| 8.18.10 @ 4:25PM
Just now I read some of these posts and closed my eyes and tried to imagine the people posting.
I can see both Ryan and Jeremaih as disciples. Ryan maybe as Peter and Jeremaih as John. Tom and Ken I can see the same, maybe as the fussing sons of Zebedee. But then I think of Margie and you know what I see? A furious old woman standing in a crowd, her face lined with hatred as she screams, "Crucify him" over and over again.
You know, Margie, Jesus taught a lot of things that weren't in the Torah. Why do I think your version of kindness if you ran into him would be to tell him he was going to hell? You need to slow down and take a look at yourself in the mirror. If you are not just a troll trying to make people like me look bad you are in danger of the judgment.
You sound like you ought to be a muslim. You'd fit right in with al-quaeda.
Ryan| 8.18.10 @ 4:51PM
Thanks for the complement. I don't think I'm halfway that far.
Does this make me Pope?
Jeremiah| 8.18.10 @ 7:08PM
Haha...I love it...Pope Ryan...
Maybe we should just make you a Cardinal first. But I see that if you're Pope I'm the chief theologian. Hmmm, we might yet be able to make this work. Just keep tom and Ken away from me when I'm writing.
Margie| 8.18.10 @ 7:03PM
Mr. King,
You are still a liar. And the truth is~ some of you Catholics would spill over with joy and join in signing that tune you assign to me as singing to Him..
Despicable man. You spew fire breathing hatred and lies.
George VII| 8.18.10 @ 7:26PM
I'm not Catholic Margie. But if anyone here could convince me to be one, it's you.
Margie| 8.19.10 @ 11:34AM
The person you have a problem with isn't me, though you are trying to make it me. You have a problem with the Truth. Either you want to be Biblical or you don't.
If you believe in Jesus you must accept what He says. If you reject Scripture~ you are rejecting Him.
If you choose to believe doctrine that is unBiblical~ you will be found to be opposing God. If that's what you want to do it's your choice. It's about the only "freedom" you have. And then you're going to have to stand before His Judgement seat.
None of us are going to get away with misrepresenting Him. You can't use me or anybody else as your excuse, either.
Ryan| 8.19.10 @ 2:16PM
Do you believe that all your Bible-derived beliefs are correct?
Margie| 8.19.10 @ 2:29PM
You have to actually ask me that question, Ryan? And if you believe other than "Bible derived" things about God, then who and what are you really believing?
"Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Prov. 30:5 & 6.
Maria| 8.18.10 @ 5:33PM
"Certainly many factors played into the fall of Communism in Europe only two decades ago. Nonetheless many experts point to the election of John Paul II, his first papal visit to his native Poland, and the formation of Solidarity as primary catalysts. "
Speaking about the fall of communism one fact is almost never mentioned; one that might be the most important factor - Consecration of Russia and the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1984 by JPII. Our Lady of Fatima asked that Russia be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart. That was done in 1984. Five years later Soviet empire came down without bloodshed.
This is one example of many divine interventions in the history of the mankind. Sadly historians and journalists have not evolved enough yet to recognize the connection. These professions are still oppressed by the stigma cast by Enlightenment movement - no divine intervention to be mentioned by any respectable "reasonable" and logical scientist.
I say it not to be harsh to well-intentioned author of the article but rather express sadness about the state of sciences dwarfed by the Enlightenment oppressive grasp on sciences like history, psychology, psychiatry etc.
W.L. Barton| 8.18.10 @ 6:00PM
The beast of Revelation, represented by the man of sin, a succession of Pope's who claim they are speaking for God!
Blasphemy by the most evil Great Whore, Babylon the great.
Alexander the Borgia Pope speaks volumes about the intrigue of the papal palace, as does his deals with Kings, as Revelation tells us.
Apostate indulgences buying God off, as if He is E.F. Hutton, and when the pope speaks, God listens?
What a crock, these clowns do not evben understand what they read, the worst literacy comprehension since the stone age.
Anti, in the greek, simply means "in place of", and Paul warned us the anti-Christ is already among us, and he was speaking 2000 years ago.
The Pope is the devil's handmaiden, leading his great delusion followers to Hell.
And their effimate lifestyle, with purple robes to copy Kings attire, and dainty silk, and the frankenscence and myrh, all spoken of in revelation.
You fools can follow the freaks who sit around in robes, straight to Hell.
Jeremiah| 8.18.10 @ 7:03PM
Holy Refried Beans, Batman! The editor of Chick Comics weighs in.
Betsy Cantrell| 8.18.10 @ 7:36PM
No mention of Contemplative Spirituality? This is the largest sweeping religious movement in the world. It's the combination of mysticism with Eastern religions and is expressed in prayer and meditation. It's a New Age religion and embraced by Catholics. This would move the Catholic church to a one-world order. But it wouldn't be the spirit of Jesus Christ. More research, please!
Jeremiah| 8.18.10 @ 8:29PM
I am familiar with Contemplative Spirituality. It is a recent trend, but is not sweeping anything. Trends come and trends go. I have no doubt that some Catholics are being seduced into it. It's founder, Brennan Manning was a defrocked Franciscan. His audience is mostly Protestant. He started gaining some traction in the mid-90's.
All these New Age Religions get a little panache for a time, then fade. It is a sign of both our ignorance and our longing. All New Age movements are simply some blend of paganism and pantheism with some modern sprinklies on top. Both are errors that were decisively crushed and discredited centuries ago - St. Thomas Aquinas crawled down to their level and intellectually demolished them on their own terms. It is due to our ignorance that we think this something new, rather than recognizing it for the very old error that it is.
But the mainline Protestant Churches and some trendy Catholic parishes have nearly lost any sense of spirituality at all. People long for it and so, when the establishment doesn't provide it, they will seek in strange places. It is why the 'mainline' of Protestantism is a dead man walking - and why in trendy left-wing Catholic dioceses they can't get any future priests into seminary. People trapped in these places think they know Christianity because they know these bloated, lifeless frauds - and so look elsewhere, little knowing they could find something authentic and engaging in the Evangelical Movement or Orthodox Catholic dioceses.
Additionally, frauds such as Contemplative Spirituality know the emptiness in these places and specifically market to Christians, claiming their movement is compatible. Over time, they recruit some of the wrong people, who expose their frauds and others just come to see how vacuous it all is. Remember EST, crystals, etc. Frauds come, frauds go. And the stats they use to show how vibrant they are are invariably misleading. For example, if I have one adherent and next year I have five, I can say membership quintupled, making my movement the fastest-growing in the world. Don't be deceived by statistics that start with a tiny baseline.
What has shown some staying power and is horribly dangerous is wicca and paganism. But be not afraid, Betsy. Contemplative Spirituality is sweeping nothing but a few lonely corners that have been neglected.
\
Betsy Cantrell| 8.18.10 @ 9:42PM
Dear Jeremiah,
Would that this were true...unfortunately, the evangelical Christian world you refer to, is rife with Contemplative. Visit any Christian bookstore, denominational website, or latest retreat and you will find Contemplative books, practices and proponents. When I say the Catholic church, I mean the Pope, on down. The Father of Contemplative prayer is Monk,Thomas Merton- his works are prolific... and it was introduced into evangelical Christianity by Richard Foster through his book, Celebration of Disciplines. Almost every major evangelist, evangelical organization from YWAM, to Navigators, to Focus on the Family espouse it.
It is a mix of Buddhism, Hinduism and New Age.
You say it isn't in the Catholic Church. Seen any labryinths lately? Heard of Centered Prayer, Lectio Divina,(Holy Reading), the words "silence and the solitude", "sacred sex", "breathe prayers", "Jesus prayers", "celtic spirituality" "desert Fathers/Mothers", "the ancients"???(just a small sampling) Visit Lighthousetrailsresearch.org if you want to truly understand how this is sweeping the world. Or google "contemplative +" (whatever you espouse). Contemplatives are not shy about sharing their beliefs. In America, we have the right to practice whatever religion we choose, but we should KNOW what that religion is. Don't you agree?
Ryan| 8.19.10 @ 8:25AM
I've read Celebration of Discipline. Good book. Nothing unbiblical about it. It doesn't jump over that line, I think, into New Age. VERY practical applications that are useful in a Spiritual walk.
There's an overboard way of taking contemplation and there's a good side to it as well.
It's NOT bad to stop and think now and again, to be silent.
ton| 8.19.10 @ 11:25AM
And the little green men in black goggles are living in the dome of St. Peters.
(WHAT is she drinking?)
Jeremiah| 8.18.10 @ 10:45PM
Betsy, you are letting a single word used for different meanings destroy your sense of balance. Thomas Merton is NOT the father of contemplative prayer. He was just born near the beginning of the last century. Contemplatives have been around for centuries. The highest form of that sort of prayer was developed by the mystics St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila 500 years ago. The founders of the movement you rightly condemn specifically use the word 'contemplative' in hopes of seducing unwary Catholics who know and revere some of the great contemplative saints. Authentic contemplative prayer is centered on Christ. Thomas a Kempis' Imitation of Christ written in the 15th Century is probably what most sparked the movement.
Fraudulent movements love to borrow terms from something authentic, pervert them, and then use them to subvert the unwary. If you allow alarmists to chase you from what is true, even if you don't join up with what is false, the frauds have succeeded, haven't they?
Serious Catholics know how to distinguish between frauds and what is authentic. As I mentioned, the founder of the movement you cite was defrocked back in the 80s. You have done well to avoid that movement. But before you go about in panic disassociating from everything that uses the word they appropriated from an authentic Christian practice, you really should do a little independent and serious study of Church history. If you really believe contemplative prayer began in the 1900s, the Lighthouse Trails group is preying upon your lack of knowledge almost as much as the Contemplative Spirituality movement attempts to prey on your credulity.
I tell you that it does not bother satan a whit if he scares you so much from one error he attempts that it drives you into the equal and opposite error. Either way he has accomplished his goal.
Just a little piece of advice for anyone researching anything. Do not get all your information from one source. Study at least three - one that is hostile to what you are studying, one that is in sympathy with it, and most importantly, what the object being studied says about itself. That will not give you a fair picture, but will lay the groundwork by which you may begin to get a fair picture.
Betsy Cantrell| 8.18.10 @ 11:48PM
You are right, Contemplatives have been part of the Catholic church for centuries. You are also correct in calling them "mystics", or people who believe they have "special knowledge" from God, or have a "special connection" with God. Scripture has this to say about mystics, "turn away from..what is falsely called knowledge" 1Tim 6:20. As believers, we can boldly go before the throne of God "in Him you have been made complete" Col 2:10 Further, we are warned not to be deceived by empty philosophy or deception. We do not need special powers/knowledge to know Jesus- He has made himself fully known to us.
I'm sure the Catholic church does have believers, "firmly rooted ..and established in their faith" Col 2:7.
Mysticism in the Catholic church was reignited with the discovery of the Gnostic gospels. Read those, and you'll understand the mysticism, magic and astrology that guided these mystics.
You may not believe Thomas Merton to be the Father of Contemplative prayer, but check the bibliography of the vast array of Contemplative books, and you'll find him the most quoted author/mentor. I can certainly see why you'd want to back-away from him, since he embraced Buddhism; and called Contemplative prayer, "better than an LDS trip"; and his experience with a "vision of Buddha" to be the most meaningful experience of his life.
Jeremiah, you are also right, that we should be diligent in researching contemplative, just like we are exhorted to diligently search the scripture.
You may not wish to accept that Contemplative spirituality is a combination of all I've written, or that it has invaded nearly every Christian denomination/Catholic church in the world, but the evidence is easily found.
If we were debating transubstantiation, or the Virgin Mary, or some other Christian doctrine; we could probably go all night. But we're not debating Scripture; we're debating the combination of Christianity with other gods. A new ecumenicalism. And as someone wrote earlier, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father except through me. " John 14:6
Blessings to you.
Jeremiah| 8.19.10 @ 12:44AM
Well, I am offended because I am particularly endeared to St. Teresa of Avila, who I count as a patroness. I have read her complete works - everything she ever wrote that survives, along with much that has been written about her by others. She, of course, is a Doctor of the Church. There is nothing - not a whit - in her work that involves communing with strange Gods. She was centered entirely on Christ, as were the other authentic mystics.
You do not strike me as unkind - I don't take offense at your obviously legitimate concern for anything that would pervert authentic teaching or draw in pagan gods. But you demonstrate the sort of superficial knowledge of the mystics that would come from a reading muddled pamphlets.
The mystics had nothing to do with the Gnostic heresy; there is no connection between them. That you have muddled them together is what suggests to me you have read a few pamphlets that, without knowledge, muddle the concepts of 'secret knowledge' that the Gnostics sought with the 'private revelations' that were given to the mystics. A very simple explanation of the difference is that the Gnostics operated outside of the Church, contrary to Scripture, and thought their way superior to anything the Church said. They were heretics. The authentic mystics did not seek their locutions, often had them for years before saying anything about them, and always submitted them for approval to the Church. The authentic mystics are the prophets of the modern Church - and reject anything that is contrary to faith and morals.
Again, I do not fault you for insincerity. But you have mixed so many half-truths, almost truths and flat-out distortions together that it is clear you do not know the history of what you are writing about with any depth. Not a single authentic mystic EVER wanted to mix Christianity with any other God. They were all centered on Christ and entirely submissive to the teaching authority of the Church.
I probably cannot say this without being somewhat offensive, but you clearly don't have sufficient study to debate this fruitfully. Too many errors and transposed concepts. I do not say that out of some sense of superiority. I disagree with Ryan regularly - but he gets his facts right and, if he doesn't, corrects them quickly. We argue over interpretation of those facts which he has obviously taken time to study in depth. You may have a very penetrating intellect. But you simply have the facts entirely wrong when you accuse such as St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa, St. Catherine and other authentic mystics of having anything to do with astrology, magic, or Gnosticism. Do the reading and don't try to use Cliff Notes to play at it and we can discuss this seriously.
Betsy Cantrell| 8.19.10 @ 5:42PM
Jeremiah,
I appreciate the sincerity of your remarks. However, discrediting people who disagree with you, doesn't make your argument correct. As I said earlier, "would that it were true" that Contemplative is not a mix of Christianity and Eastern religions.
Contemplative prayer, as practiced today, is a trance like/mystical state reached by chanting and emptying one's mind to achieve a transcendental state, allowing "the spirit" to come. Richard Foster, says you must be careful, it could be an evil spirit that comes.
New Agers are overjoyed that this has come into the Christian church.
Perhaps my comments will entice you to research this and disprove me. You are obviously a very intellectual individual, quite capable of taking my challenge!
P.S. Please accept my apology for opening this door for you, for once you know the truth, you will sincerely regret you ever heard of Contemplative.
Were you chosen, "for such a time as this"???