The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Reading the Papal Tea Leaves

By on 3.20.13 @ 6:10AM

 In what direction will the Church move under Pope Francis?

“I was overwhelmed by joy,” said Hans Kung, the dissenting European theologian, in a radio interview after the elevation of Pope Francis. “There is hope in this man,” gushed Kung, who predicted that Pope Francis will conform to the progressive interpretation of Vatican II and not follow the “line of the two popes from Poland and Germany.”

Leonardo Boff, one of the fathers of liberation theology, was quoted in the German press as saying that Francis is “more liberal” than commonly supposed.

Cardinal Roger Mahony took to Twitter to proclaim that the Church would move from high church to “low” church under Francis: “So long Papal ermine and fancy lace!”

The National Catholic Reporter approvingly quoted an unnamed Vatican diplomat as saying that “the Traditional Latin Mass brigade is finished.”

Esteban Paulon, president of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals, told the Washington Post that Pope Francis is “known for being moderate” and when “he came out strongly against gay marriage, he did it under pressure from the conservatives.” According to Sergio Rubin, whom the Post calls his authorized biographer, Pope Francis initially “urged his bishops to lobby for gay civil unions” as an alternative to gay marriage.

Benedict’s speech on Islam at the University of Regensburg didn’t sit well with Francis, according to the Telegraph in the United Kingdom. “These statements will serve to destroy in 20 seconds the careful construction of a relationship with Islam that Pope John Paul II built over the last twenty years,” it quotes him as saying.

Reports on his compliance with Benedict’s authorization of wider use of the Traditional Latin Mass are conflicting, but it is safe to say that he was less than thrilled by it. According to columnist E.J. Dionne, “an American bishop noted that the choice of Francis would not be greeted as a clear victory by conservatives,” since on “liturgical issues, he has opposed those who seek to roll back changes instituted by the Second Vatican Council.”

The picture that is forming of Pope Francis from all these bits and pieces is not that of a Ratzingerian restorationist but of a centrist prelate whose theological  views, tone, and emphases are characteristic of the post-Vatican II period. He is no Hans Kung. He is too pro-life and Marian for that level of theological conjecture. But it is a stretch to think that he shares Benedict’s rigorous critique of the crisis within the Church and the modern world. There is a reason why the progressive bloc within the previous conclave saw him as a desirable alternative to Ratzinger.

It was telling that Pope Francis in his first address from the papal window pointed to Cardinal Walter Kasper as a theologian whom he admires. Kasper is known for his hyper-ecumenism and taste for theological novelty.

“We are on good terms with the Archbishop of Canterbury and as much as we can we are helping him to keep the Anglican community together,” Kasper said in 2010, referring to a group of disaffected conservative Anglicans that wanted to join the Catholic Church. “It’s not our policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome.”

Apparently Kasper and Francis agreed on this issue. Greg Venable, an Anglican prelate in Latin America, has told the press that the future pope “called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate was quite unnecessary and that the Church needs us as Anglicans.”

Francis has the benevolent and winning personality of John Paul II and the humility of Benedict (though his took a less celebrated form), but his theological views mark him out as more centrist than his two predecessors. They attributed the collapse of Catholic institutions largely to a misapplication of Vatican II. Referring to the liturgy, Benedict spoke of the need for a “reform of the reform.” Francis appears happy enough with the first reform.

Francis’s papacy may not so much move the Church into the future as back to the recent past, circa 1970. Quarrels over the proper interpretation of Vatican II are more likely to explode than end. Emboldened liberal bishops under him may seek a reform of the “reform of the reform,” and they may push for a revisiting of settled moral, theological, and disciplinary stances. None of this repositioning will take place at the level of official teaching but at the murkier levels of tone, emphasis, and appointment.

That the Catholic left considers his election a shot in the arm can’t be chalked up simply to projection. There are enough nuances here to give them hope. They believe that this is their moment to try to undo the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict and return to the casual, informal, and spontaneous liturgical spirit of the 1970s while reviving a more poll-friendly situational ethics. Tweeted Mahony: “Don’t you feel the new energy, and being shared with one another?”

Hans Kung accepts that Pope Francis can’t adapt to “everything” in the modern world, but just hopes the general trajectory of his pontificate will be progressive. In Pope Francis’s apparent emphasis on individual conscience (he dispensed with the traditional spoken papal blessing when speaking to journalists last Saturday on the grounds that some of them weren’t Catholic or believers), toned-down morality, and Seamless Garment-style prioritizing of poverty, peace, and the environment, Kung and company see a pope with whom they can at long last “dialogue.”

About the Author

George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (190) |

Pseudo-Macarius| 3.20.13 @ 6:34AM

This could be very bad news for orthodox Catholics.

AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.20.13 @ 10:45AM

Macaronionis,
Neumayer is being a contrarian- that's what he is paid for. But the Derb for instance does much better as he is a first-class thinker, not a second-class one.

alice921| 3.20.13 @ 12:23PM

Its definitely the most-financially rewarding I ve ever done. Make money with Google. On thursday I got a brand new Chevrolet Corvette since I been earnin $5269 this-past/4 weeks and-even more than, $10,000 this past month. I work through this link, http://tw.gs/YbVcey

Parker R.| 3.20.13 @ 6:20PM

I think Pope Francis will be liberal.While Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio led the church's effort to block the legalization of same-sex marriage in Argentina, the man who would become Pope Francis said privately he was in favor of civil unions, an activist says.

This is promising.

Appleby| 3.20.13 @ 6:36AM

This is arrant nonsense; everything the Catholics who know him have been saying speaks against the wild hope of the Hippies that Pope Francis will lead the church to smash itsedlf against the rocks and go where the Anglican Communion has led.

Jack in Wi| 3.20.13 @ 7:04AM

Amen Appleby: Give the Pope and the Holy Spirit a chance. The new Pope was very nice and solicitious of Pope Benedict. Cardinal Dolan loves the guy. He is about as orthodox as it comes. George is afraid that Pope Francis will be the man of peace of his namesake. He most likely will push peace in the Middle East and out reach to the Muslims. That is what St. Francis did. He even went out and tried to convert the Turkish Sultan and had a dialoge with him. Pope Francis is a man of Peace and the poor. That is what Jesus teaches.

JP| 3.20.13 @ 9:02AM

Jack,
I would have to agree with you on this. If Pope Francis is in fact what Mr. Neumayer fears, Benedict never would have abdicated. Pope Francis is 77, and another year or 2 he would have been considered too old.

I don't think the Pope is able to return to the glory days of the 1970s, even he wished. The problems awaiting the Church are just too many. The Roman Curia is horrible shape; Pentacostalism is eroding the Church in South America; in Europe, the Catholic population is rapidly aging and dying out. And in Africa, Christianity, while growing is under a constant threat of triumphant Islam. And while most Catholics do not want to return to the days of "Pray, Pay, and Obey", they certainly do not want to return to the days of the Seamless Garment, dissenting Bishops, and the Lavendar Mafia.

Parker R.| 3.20.13 @ 10:17AM

I'm happy to believe that Pope Francis will be progressive.

The church must continue to evolve intellectually and morally by grasping the advances in knowledge provided by science--especially advances in the areas of genetics and psychology.

For example, no longer can the church claim that victims of Tourette's Syndrome are "demon possessed."

Evolve. We must evolve.

AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.20.13 @ 10:48AM

AS is contrarian to progress- not opposed, but they'd argue with their own shadows, Parker.

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 11:08AM

Like the advances in neonatal reasearch that show unborn baby humans exhibiting human emotions such as empathy as early as 14 weeks into gestation?

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/0.....pregnancy/

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 11:08AM

"no longer can the church claim that victims of Tourette's Syndrome are "demon possessed.""

First time I've ever heard this.

AlanAnti-RoveCheneyBrooks | 3.20.13 @ 11:40AM

...Macaroonius, Markenoff:
for once am going to defend AS but by their own perspectives: a rightist/conservative does not have to defend progress in any way, not social nor scientific progress.
However neither does a Ted Kennedy-type or any other illiberal. One can take any position one wants-- as long as one accepts than turnabout can be fair play. Funny, when a tree hugger takes a retro stance, then he is fool, a dupe, a dope-- yet when an uneducated rightist takes a thoroughly uninformed position, then he is exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. No mention of how he is as silly as an environmental extremist.

JP| 3.20.13 @ 1:04PM

There Church predates Western Science by 1500 years. For the good Science has given the world it also has given us The French Revolution, Marxism, Eugenics, abortion, poison gas, nukes, etc...

You're idea that Science equates to Progress is a bit dated - by about 100 years.

TLP| 3.20.13 @ 1:31PM

Does anyone know what this Argentine Pope was doing in the 60's, the 70's, and the 80's?

Was he Ministering to the various Communist Rebel Groups, hold up in the various Jungles of South America?

That might be a good place to Start, in determining where this man might go.

gene| 3.20.13 @ 2:45PM

Everyone seems way too concerned about what is going on in the 'Shadowlands" Yes we need to be concerned about the elderly, the sick, the poor, etc and so on. However, wars, famines, epidemics, and the like never bring more death into the world. It just radically changes the time and the place and the level or lack of comfort. Christians are supposed to be occupying themselves with the Scripture and the message of salvation in addition to helping people. Let's get the priorities straigntened out.

Chef Schnauzer| 3.21.13 @ 7:34AM

Man of Peace...... too often achieving a sort of temporal peace (as opposed to the Peace of Heaven - see President Nixon's comments on the difference) has been the foundation stone of further conflict and savagery. A bad peace is worse than a lukewarm war. BTW - out of the blue - I realized last night: I show my dog more love, respect and care than Gos shows to man in general or his 'chosen'.

Chef Schnauzer| 3.21.13 @ 7:35AM

God not Gos...

Joellen| 3.20.13 @ 6:50AM

Here in America, the Church cant get any more "casual, informal, and spontaneous liturgical spirit of the 1970s while reviving a more poll-friendly situational ethics".

We have lost our awe and reverence while in the House of God (the way we dress, talking and chewing gum throughout Mass, the way we casually walk up to receive the Body of CHRIST as if we are receiving a big mac); absolutely no true understanding and knowledge of our doctrine and what the Church represents; the true meaning of the Sacraments that we are blessed with; our standards have sunken so very low.

If the Pope takes us on a more progressive track, if he goes against the teachings of TRUTH, then the battle within the church will be the defining moment of not just the future of the Church, but the future of the world.

As in the United States of America, everything rides on how we battle this evil of relativism.

For the Pope's duty is NOT to conform to this world and its way, it is to BRING us UP to the heights of Heaven through GOD's laws and GOD's way.

Please pray, it doesnt matter what your religion is, pray that the Pope adheres to the HOLY SPIRIT's will only.

Ryan| 3.20.13 @ 9:11AM

FWIW, the RCC probably needs to encourage its membership to seek learning the Word outside of the homily and reading during Mass. Once a week simply cannot work.

JP| 3.20.13 @ 1:08PM

The Church has daily readings. For those few who go to Daily Mass, they go through the entire Bible every 3 years. Likewise, the Cathechism is heavily footnoted by scriptural references. The Mass's main intention is Consecration and consumption of the Eucharist.

nathan| 3.20.13 @ 9:22AM

Madam: I have a question for you and it's a serious one. I come from a conservative protestant background, my wife when I met her online was Catholic. She gets here so now where do we go every weekend? For various reasons we end up at a VERY large evangelical church with an incredibly gifted senior pastor so she sees it both ways and we discuss Catholicism a lot even though she no longer practices it.

My question to you is this: Catholics, and Buckley was like this too, seem to emphasize the "sacraments" a lot the "awe" the mystery of the service itself? WFB decried the loss of the Latin mass even though no one understood it and someone coming in off the street for the first time would have turned and walked out getting nothing out of it. The church we go it does in fact allow casual dress and yet we strongly emphasize descipleship, going out and and evangelizing, bringing the lost to Christ, something not only my wife but Catholic friends have told me the Church has not really placed a lot of emphasis on. Am I somewhere in the ballpark here? You yourself mention here the Sacraments something I see as a recurring theme when Catholics write, but something that certainly at our church really play no real role in what we do. It's truly an interesting contrast and for me as I interact with my inlaws, my niece for example, it's like how do I "do the right thing?" Please comment

nathan| 3.20.13 @ 9:36AM

I would again madam point out that when we look at the services, protestant ministers dress in suits and ties (ours does some can be rather casual) while we look at a Catholic services with the robes, the vestments, all of it. How significant is that? If Catholic priests were to change the mode of dress to say a business suit, would that for you Joellen impact the quality of the service even if the the message was entirely the same? For us as we listen to him every weekend, and think about the impact he has had on us (theologically God through him of course) as long as he's "presentable" that's fine. Again I'm genuinely curious what role "form" plays here.

A friend of mine tells me that the Church is starting to emphasize "personal evangelizing" more. Are you personally seeing that and would you like to see more of that, more emphasis on being better individual desciples? (In a recent sermon he gave the four elements of how we get there, 1. prayer, 2. Bible reading, 3. being both willing and wanting to share our faith with others even if that incurs risks and problems for us, 4. keeping the company of other Christians, especially those farther along in the faith than we are, all this tied together by the Holy Spirit within us.)

Parker R.| 3.20.13 @ 10:24AM

I admire the mystery and beauty in the art and liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. I like dignified ritual.

I do not appreciate the vulgarity of protestant mega-churches. Does your "VERY large" church project the service on a screen above the pulpit? Do you have a rock "n" roll praise Jesus band?

Vulgar. Downright tacky. Sorry, but that's how I see your worship service.

SUBVET| 3.20.13 @ 11:06AM

Mr. Parker when was the last time you sat and read the Book of Life ?

Get a grip........it's not about the show it's about a relationship with God.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 11:23AM

Speaking only for myself, I don't belong to a "mega-church." And I never would. NO congregation should have that many members; over-centralization risks exposing too many people to top-down error...like in Catholicism.

We also DON'T have a rock-n-roll band, or any other type of instrumental music. All singing is done acapella.

I was a Catholic for 32 years. Here's how I see Catholic worship service:

1. Overly ritualistic
2. Shallow
3. Repetitious

TLP| 3.20.13 @ 1:40PM

Does the Congregation know that on this Site, as Doctor Shit fer Brains, you throw the word - RETARD - around, like nobody's business?

I wonder what your Acapella Group would think about that?

Idiot.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 1:49PM

...Yawn...

nathan| 3.20.13 @ 1:23PM

I'll answer your question first. By necessity we project on large screens because otherwise as big as the physical facility is, he simply couldn't be seen or really be properly heard especially by those of us in the balcony. We also have satellite churches and we broadcast on the net. My best friend in another state is a "member" via the internet broadcasts.

Our worship service varies. Sometimes it's a full scale orchestra with choir, other times, what you might consider a "rock" band if you choose to call it that. ("Adult contemporary"?) And everything in between. The church I grew up in was a small conservative baptist church so I've seen it both ways. What keeps us here is the message. We agree with what's being said and the senior pastor is incredibly good at how he presents it, the best "teacher" my wife has ever seen. One man's "vulgarity" another man's devine inspiration. But I get that a lot of people can be overwhelmed by large churches. I like the many "services" including counseling that large churches can offer that smaller ones simply lack the resources to effective bring to their congregation. That help?

C. Vernon Crisler | 3.20.13 @ 10:26AM

I wonder what the disciples wore when they preached?

Parker R.| 3.20.13 @ 10:33AM

What we choose to wear to church is an extension of etiquette. Tradition dictates that you dress up for certain formal occasions, and church is one of these occasions, Mr. Crisler.

SUBVET| 3.20.13 @ 11:02AM

Mr. Parker...may I remind you it's what is in your heart not what you wear.

Tradition "man made"= Problem

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 11:19AM

True.

But when we dress like slobs, we do send a signal.

Parker R.| 3.20.13 @ 12:11PM

"But when we dress like slobs we do send a signal," and that signal is this: I will make no effort to dress up to honor this sacred occasion; I will treat it as a casual social occasion, unlike any other casual social occasion.

Parker R.| 3.20.13 @ 12:11PM

"But when we dress like slobs we do send a signal," and that signal is this: I will make no effort to dress up to honor this sacred occasion; I will treat it as a casual social occasion, unlike any other casual social occasion.

nathan| 3.20.13 @ 1:32PM

I actually sort of get your point sir. When I was growing up we all understood the concept of "Sunday go to meeting" clothes. And I will admit being somewhat taken aback at first by the more casual form of dress when I first started where we now attend. I'm fifth generation southerner and I know the south well and while not raised there, one of my parents came from the south and I spent a lot of time there and attended a southern university. The whole, walk into church straight from the beach idea again did not sit well with me initially. But I think when you're comfortable you focus more on the message? Maybe. And again, what do we really want to emphasize here? An ancestor of mine was a minister in the hills of a southern state. He asked a guy once why he wasn't attending church. The man told him, he and his family literally couldn't afford shoes and he was ashamed to show up that way. My ancestor said no problem and had HIS family show up without any to make him feel more comfortable.

I'll suggest this to you. What we want to focus on is getting people in the door so that they can hear the message of salvation. How they dress is for the most part less important than getting them to hear it. We have to create a welcoming environment for one and all. If they don't feel welcome they won't come in and they won't hear about the one and only path to heaven. That has to be the primary emphasis for all of us. Comment?

SUBVET| 3.20.13 @ 6:14PM

Define slob..........hier doctor

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 11:19AM

What you wear at an event is an expression of your heart. If you went to the funeral of a friend and someone showed up in jean shorts a T-shirt and flip flops would you make not inferences about the level of respect that individual had for your friend?

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 11:28AM

Tradition is always bad? No traditions in the USN, right?

C. Vernon Crisler | 3.20.13 @ 11:18AM

Parker R, can you say Pharisee?

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 11:20AM

Yes because Parker R. is obviously binding up heavy loads for other men that he is unwilling to carry himself.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 11:25AM

That's unfair, Vern.

I will agree: your dress does not reveal your heart.

BUT...it is revealing. When we dress like slobs, it sends a signal that we really don't consider this activity all too special.

SUBVET| 3.20.13 @ 6:15PM

Again.......define slob

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 11:28AM

This comes down to a profound difference between protestants and Catholics. I have been to many protestant services, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, C of C and "non-denominational". The general attitude is that it is a social occassion for fellowship with focus on a "message" generally delivered by a man, sometimes by a woman.

A Catholic mass is more than that. It is the remeberance ceremony Jesus Christ instructed His Apostles to perform during the Last Supper. Rarely, if ever, have I heard Jesus's words calling us to remember the great sacrifice He made in dying for us on the cross through eating His flesh and drinking His blood at a protestant service. But you always here it at a Catholic mass because it is the remeberance ceremony instituted by Christ at the Last Supper with its focus on Christ and His sacrifice. Hence the "tradition" of Catholics (which used to be mirrored by protestants but has been abandoned by too many of them and too many Catholics) of wearing your "Sunday best" as a sign of respect for Christ and his sacrifice.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 11:35AM

Sorry, but your post is wrong on many levels.

First of all, I agree that the Worship service is NOT a "social occasion." At the church I attend, it most definitely is not.

I think you sense an over-reliance on "the message" because Catholic sermons/homilys are, in general, very shallow on Biblical messaging - and that's by design. The hirearchy of the Catholic Church does NOT want it's congregants to dig too heavily into the Bible, for obvious reasons.

Second...you do not literally eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood at communion. That is metaphor. Christ was imploring his disciples to accept His sacrifice at the Last Supper. The bread REPRESENTED His body, the wine His blood. By taking the bread and wine (eating/drinking), the Disciples were acknowledging and accepting the sacrifice AND repsonsibilities to come.

I've yet to attend a Worship service at the church I attend where the sermon did NOT end with an exhortation to be Baptized into the SACRIFICE of Christ and the PROMISE of salvation included in that sacrifice.

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 12:05PM

You haven't listened to the homilies I have. And even if the homily is bad the focus at Mass is not on the message conveyed by man it is on the sacrifice made by the Son of God.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 1:52PM

Then why bother giving a message at all???

Why not just show-up, say a few "Hail Mary"s, a few "Our Fathers,"play with your Rosary beads, sign yourself in a multitude of ways, stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down again, say "Christ died for us!" and leave??

You could be in and out in 15 minutes.

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 12:07PM

John 6: 35 (NAS) Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

41Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”42They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?”43Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves.44“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.45“It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.46“Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 12:08PM

47“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.48“I am the bread of life.49“Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.50“This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.51“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.54“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.57“As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.58“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 12:12PM

59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble?62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

These "many disciples" who walked away obviously interpreted Jesus to be saying that they literally would have to eat His body and drink His blood to have eternal life. Many of them walked away. If Christ was only speaking symbolically why did He not correct their misconceptions? Why did He let many of His disciples walk away from eternal life over a misunderstanding?

nathan| 3.20.13 @ 1:43PM

Interesting you mention this. The senior pastor preached in part from this last weekend. What Christ is saying is obviously no an exhortation to cannibalism, figuratively or literally. What we are being asked to do is "absorb" Him in the sense of becoming one with Him as much as we possible can. It's an exhortation to descipleship which is accomplished via four points, 1 prayer, 2 Bible study, 3 the willingness and the absolute joy in sharing with faith with others even if it means risk on your part (agency policy against sharing your faith? share it anyway), and hang with other Christians, especially those whose faith is stronger than yours. Steel sharpens steel but only when it's sharper than yours. Christ again is asking us to be full fledged desciples. The problem of course is most churches don't push that, don't emphasize it. We have what I refer to as Sunday morning Christians. Do we show up on Sunday? Sure. Do we "tithe"? (No mention of tithing in the New Testament.) Yes. But do we do daily devotions, pray morning and evening, do we look for ways on a regular basis to evangelize those we come in contact with? I venture to say most Christians don't. And they're still going to get to heaven, but they just aren't going to do a lot for Him on the way there. Again works don't get you "home".

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 1:58PM

But nathan...it's so much easier to believe that we are eating His flesh and drinking His blood than to engage in the 4 points you describe!

nathan| 3.20.13 @ 2:27PM

What Christ calls us to do is incredible hard. Being a totally devoted follower of Christ as opposed to a Sunday morning Christian which is what I grew up as and until recently was all I was, oh yeah it's really hard. I told my wife this week that here's where we are, I want to see notable progress in what we are as Christians a year from now. But all of us, as Christians absolutely should be trying to bring others with us. Go into the world and preach the gospel isn't a suggestion. Take the time you spend talking about politics with friends and family. You should be spending at least that much time sharing your faith with others. Because it's far more important. 100 years from now, we'll all dead. At that point, who wins the next election or the next 10 elections doesn't matter. ACA doesn't matter. The only thing that matters for you, for those in your life, your family and friends, the people you see on the street, your colleagues at work is did they accept Christ as their Savior. That's the only thing. Because that and that alone determines where they spend eternity, not who they vote for, not who runs this country. And as Christians we all have an obligation to tell as many people as possible about that. Be interested in politics, yes, be interested in March Madness, yes, but be OBSESSED with sharing your faith.

SUBVET| 3.20.13 @ 7:39PM

Doc & Nathan..........here's 4 more.

1. They may have realized that he wasn't going to be the conquering Messiah-King they expected.

2. He refused to give in to their self-centered requests.

3. He emphasized faith, not deeds.

4. His teachings were difficult to understand, and some of his words were offensive.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 1:56PM

What's your point?

Read your Bible. Then you'll understand how carefully Christ chooses his words using the O.T. prophecies to indicate who He was, and what He was doing.

He is speaking in metaphor. He's not saying "I am a loaf of bread; eat me."

He's saying "As bread gives sustenance to life - your body - so will I give sustenance to your soul."

JP| 3.20.13 @ 3:38PM

Read the 6th Chapter of John. He made himself very clear. As a matter of fact, he repeated himself 3 times. And if you read the Greek texts, he doesn't say "eat" my flesh; but "chew" my flesh. The vast majority of his disciples left him over this.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 4:12PM

When someone is speaking in metaphor, it doesn't matter whether they say "eat" or "chew;" it's metaphor!

And which disciples left Christ because they actually thought He wanted them to commit cannibalism???

Read the following (John 6:32-35)
"32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.” 35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty."

MikeBee| 3.20.13 @ 10:42PM

You're all missing the point. Jesus Christ spent time here on earth in a body, and knew exactly what we were going through, living in our bodies. He knew that, once he left the earth, we would very much miss being able to come into contact with God through our five senses, as we could when He was here.

The Catholic Church recognizes that Jesus gave us the sacraments (especially the Eucharist) as ways in which we could come into actual physical contact with God, not just an idea of him. Protestant religions, with their great emphasis on the Word, and their far superior preaching, and their emphasis on Communion being symbolic only (a thing of the mind; very European, by the way, all intellectual and cerebral), miss this one element only. We are human beings. We need to hear God and touch him. The sacraments allow us to do so. When Catholics receive Communion, they are touching God.

I really wish the Catholic and Protestant churches would come together again and form one church. Then, we'd have the best of both worlds. We'd have the excellent preaching and strong emphasis on the written Word of God from the Protestants, and we'd have the ability to come into actual physical contact with God in the Sacraments from the Catholics. We need the strength of both the Catholics and Protestants. We need to come into full contact with God.

Jack in Wi| 3.20.13 @ 12:07PM

Dr. Never Right; The whole mass is Biblically centered. The Bible was written to be read at Mass and other and other Catholic services. The scriptures were always the center of Catholic worship. Nathan's pastor has to think up new ideas every week to spout. The Mass is the Eucharist which Jesus instituted on Holy Thursday. Only the Catholics, Orthodox and Coptics have the real Eutharist. They are the only Apostolic churches. The rest are all babble, with you the biggest babbler of all.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 1:57PM

Really, Jack?

Biblically centered?

Can you point out exactly WHERE in the Bible the Catholic Mass can be found?

Jack in Wi| 3.20.13 @ 3:07PM

The Eucharist from Holy Thursday. It has always been the center of Catholic worship. The Mass has always been the center with Christians from the earliest days. Look to the Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptics. They are the Apostolic Churches. They all have the Bible, Mass and 7 sacraments. Even Luther kept a lot of the Catholic Mass in his eucharist service. Read up on the conversion of Scott Hahn. He was an evangelical pastor who went to mass in a basment church I have often attended. He immediatly saw the biblical implications in every part of the Mass. He converted and has become a wonderful lay preacher, teacher and apologist for the Catholic religion. He is often on EWTN and has a great webbsite. Google him.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 4:15PM

Jack,

You are steeped in Catholic dogma and half-truths, as well as anti-Semitism. Father Coughlin would be very proud.

Jack in Wi| 3.20.13 @ 4:57PM

Dr. never right: You are desperate again. Can't make a coherent argument so you name call. It's always the same with you. Father Coughlin was no antisemite by the way. He just told the truth. He was against war and the Federal Reserve. That makes him an antisemite in the eyes of the banksters and warmongers. The smearbund attacked him just like it did such great patriots as Charles Lindbergh, the America First Committee, Herbert Hoover, Joseph Kennedy, Joe Sobran, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul and anyone else that wants to change what is going on around here.

Jack in Wi| 3.20.13 @ 11:55AM

Nathan the Bible comes from the Catholic Church. Most protestant sects worship the Bible but not in the place where it came from. God set up the Catholic Church with Jesus as it head. Jesus set up the governence of the Church with Peter and the Apostles as its leaders. He rules through the Holy Spirit. Numerous internal herisies, Rabbinical Talmuidic Judaism, Islam, 35000 squabbling Protestant sects, The French Revolution, Atheism, Communism, Socialism, National Socialism, and new age Neopaganism were all set up to destroy and replace the Church. they haven't succeed yet. The reason is Because God has protected it all these centuries. The reason you and your wife are still talking about the Church is because it is the Truth and you are resisting that.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 12:03PM

Saying "the Bible comes from the Catholic Church" is like saying Jesus comes from the Catholic Church...

Jack in Wi| 3.20.13 @ 12:16PM

Jesus is the head of the Church. The Pope is his earthy general manager. God gave the Church the authority to teach the world. It gave the world the Bible as part of that mission. The canon of the Bible was approved of at Church councils in the 4th century. It was signed off on by the Pope. The Roman emperor paid for the first 50 copies, a huge sum. One of them still exists in the Vatican library. The Church protected and copied it faithfully for 1200 years before Luther. You can't get around the fact that there would be not one protestant church if not for the Catholic church. The Bible is only one of many tools developed by the Church in it's mission to spread the Good News around the world.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 4:18PM

WHERE in the Bible does it say that Jesus has need of an "earthly general manager"???

WHERE does it say that Mary is "co-redeemer"?? (Which is outright blasphemy)

You can't get around the fact that there would be no Catholic church if not for Christianity.

Jack in Wi| 3.20.13 @ 5:01PM

" You are Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church. I give you the keys to the kingdom. What you bind on earth I will bind in heaven. etc. " You know it well and reject it because you have the great sin of Pride.

JP| 3.20.13 @ 1:22PM

The priestly vestments actually predate The Church. They go back to the priestly order of Melchizedek mentioned in Genesis. While the priestly discipleship goes back to Christ, they are ordained into the Order of Melchizedek (See Genesis, Psalms, and the Letters to the Hebrews).

The vestments are a reflection of that ancient order.

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 11:10AM

"we end up at a VERY large evangelical church with an incredibly gifted senior pastor"

You let a "senior pastor" come between you and Jesus Christ? Why not just read your BIble and let it guide you. Only Scripture.

Ryan| 3.20.13 @ 2:35PM

That's a misstatement of Protestant beliefs of the position of the Pastor (which, btw, a lot of Protestants get wrong).

Self-study can lead to a lot of errors as well - not knowing Hebrew and Greek, or knowing cultural issues about to whom certain scriptures were written, can lead to serious error. Men have studied and looked at such things for YEARS, and it is not bad to leave their learning behind, and to search to see if they are correct.

SUBVET| 3.20.13 @ 7:47PM

Don't forget confession.......man to man....no thanks how about man to God.

Another man made law "tradition" of a RELIGION.

JP| 3.20.13 @ 1:16PM

The Mass is not about us; it is about Him. Consuming the Body and Blood of Christ is THE only reason to go to Mass. That is THE difference between Protestant and Catholic services. As a matter of fact, the Church doesn't call them services, but Eurcharistic Celebrations. During the Consecration we enter into the time of Christ's Sufferings. By taking the Eucharist we allow Christ to enter us. When the Eucharist is exposed at the Altar, it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Chist.

BTW, almost all Catholics in the old days knew enough Latin to understand the Trinentine Mass (Latin Mass). The old rite was focused on the Solemnity of Christ's Passion and Death; very different feel from the Novus Ordo Mass we see today.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 4:19PM

Do you believe in literal transubstantiation?

Those paganistic rituals you describe have NO relation to anything in the Bible.

FairPorter| 3.20.13 @ 7:13AM

Pope Francis I will be what the Church needs today. Have some confidence in the cardinals. Certainly have some confidence in the Holy Spirit, who directed the election of our Pope. Believe that our Pope is the vicar of Christ, and pray for him.

However, take the time to find out what the Pope actually says and does and writes. The majority of the media will spin everything relating to our Pope to look more "progressive" and ignore everything that can't be spun to fit their agendas.

crankitup| 3.20.13 @ 8:01AM

applelady don't confuse the Episcopal Church USA , with Anglicanism I refer to the Anglican Church in America, and the Anglican Province in America, the later two have consolidated, we use the Book of Common Prayer 1929 version and are not in union with the Episcopal Church USA, we are very conservative in our beliefs and doctrine in worshiping Jesus Christ Our Savior in Holy Communion. We have not succumbed to the heresy of the left, homosexual clergy, homosexual marriage, condoning abortion.

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 11:16AM

Hard to keep track of the thousands of different protestant denominations.

Derek Leaberry| 3.20.13 @ 8:14AM

The Latin Mass will be pushed to the outer darkness by this pope. I can't see that he will be anything other than any enemy to my family and me.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 9:02AM

The language of the worship service is utterly irrelevant.

WHY focus on such a triviality?

Parker R.| 3.20.13 @ 10:26AM

"The language of the worship service is utterly irrelevant."

Explain, please.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 11:29AM

Meaning God understands ALL languages.

The Catholic controversy between those who prefer the "Latin Mass" and those who don't is altogether silly.

There's no scriptural prerequisite for a worship service to be conducted in Latin.

ZERO.

But some attach an undeserved significance to it.

Maybe it's what they had growing up. Or maybe it sounds, like, really spiritual!!!

Either way, it's another example of how Catholicism often favors form over substance.

ef| 3.20.13 @ 12:34PM

The "Latin Mass" referred to here is in reference to the Traditional Latin Mass, i.e., the Mass in the same form for at least 600 years. It's an entirely different Mass than the current Novus Ordo Mass, whether said in vernacular or Latin. The language isn't the issue at all. We're talking about a different Mass.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 2:00PM

Good point, but also irrelevant.

NOWHERE in scripture are we exhorted or cajoled to engage in a ritualistic worship service.

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 11:17AM

"The language of the worship service is utterly irrelevant."

Might as well worship in Klingon.

JP| 3.20.13 @ 1:28PM

There was a time that a Catholic could go to any Mass in the world and understand it. For the Mass didn't belong to the Italians, Germans, Americans, or Nigerians. The entire reason that the Church chose Latin was to stree its Universalism. By dispensing with the Latin Rite, we've not only seen abuses, but we've seen the idea of the Mass being "My" Mass crop up.

ef| 3.20.13 @ 12:32PM

Let us pray that doesn't happen and he surprises us. I refuse to despair over this.

Peter| 3.20.13 @ 8:41AM

Society of Pius X here I come......

ef| 3.20.13 @ 12:35PM

Me too, if the pessimists prove to be correct.

Belianis | 3.20.13 @ 8:45AM

One question:
who the bloody blazes takes Hans Kung-dry seriously?
I remember that, when he spoke such absurdities as that Christ did not intend to found Christianity, I found myself wondering what Bible he was using because everything he said contradicted everything in the Bible that is universally known.

C. Vernon Crisler | 3.20.13 @ 10:28AM

If I recall, Kung was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic denomination. Why are his views relevant?

ef| 3.20.13 @ 12:36PM

You're correct, his views are completely irrelevant. It's the media's love of those types of viewpoints why we're hearing it in the first place. Irrelevant. (I hope!)

JP| 3.20.13 @ 1:30PM

He was never ex-communicated. However, then Cdl Ratzinger pulled his teaching creds at Cahtolic universities and seminaries. He's still a priest and he's still a Catholic.

Parker R.| 3.20.13 @ 2:55PM

The babel of voices on this blog gives me a headache.

Can't we be a little more polite when we're discussing religion? Some of the voices on here are rather strident--TLP, for example.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 4:23PM

TLP is an immature, obnoxious blowhard who gets very upset when he's NOT the center of attention, thus his infantile need to hurl 8th-grade insults.

Best to ignore him; he'll eventually wander over to another article.

SUBVET| 3.20.13 @ 8:02PM

Parker my man.......grow up..... now your starting to sound like a lib.....some use words to describe how they feel and you my sensitive boy need to understand they are just words...if you take offence maybe you should just find some other rag to troll on.

Heir Doctor.....I see you have some insight on the subject of religion most of what you say can be backed up with written truth. I think you have taken TLP out of context by your description "immature - obnoxious blowhard.

Maybe the word PASSION suits him better.

C. Vernon Crisler | 3.20.13 @ 3:46PM

JP, thanks. Now the question is: why hasn't he been excommunicated?

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 9:01AM

The same direction it ALWAYS moves:

Towards a continuing, Catholic-centric world and religious view: light on Biblical emphasis, strong on Catholic dogma, with a smattering of pithy statements that no sane person could disagree with like "We must love the poor."

What?

Did anyone actually think that the Cardinals (the "Princes of the Church") would nominate someone who might possibly upset their cushy apple-carts???

The Catholic Church is a political organization masquerading as a Church; always has been, always will be. In that regard, their behavior is predictable:

"DON'T rock the boat."

Ryan| 3.20.13 @ 9:15AM

Do you believe that there were Christians between the 1st century and the Reformation? Were they other than Catholic?

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 9:27AM

Yes to both questions.

You assume that Christians are either:

a) Catholic, or...
b) Protestant

This is not only wrong, it's incredibly arrogant, and displays confusion of Scripture, history, and Christian denominationalism.

The first Christians were...Christians. Followers of "the Way."

They were NOT Catholics; that is a falsehood that Catholics are either quite happy to spread, or too incurious to explore.

To a Christian, Catholicism is simply another denomination. Period.

Catholicism did not exist during the 3 years that Christ preached His ministry. It did not exist at the resurrection, or at Pentecost. Peter was NEVER a Pope. There is NO scriptural justification for the structure or power of the Catholic Church insofar as Catholics falsely believe themselves to be the original Christian faith. And "traditions" are irrelevant in this case, since the foundation MUST be laid first before traditions can have validity as anything other than ritual.

Hopefully that answers your questions.

dominic1955| 3.20.13 @ 11:34AM

As the great Cardinal Newman said, to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. Christian history is sacramental, liturgical, hierarchical and traditional-none of which any Protestant or vague non-denom "Christianity" fit into. You then basically have two choices, Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

Scripture needs an authoritative interpreter, as the existence of the myriad of non-sacramental "Christian" sects attest to. Luther and friends came up w/ "Sola Scriptura" to get around the authority of Rome because you cannot hardly appeal to Tradition as it cannot stand without authority. Neither can Scripture, but it is more believable on its own as its a neat, all in one package. Sans the parts Martin didn't like, of course...

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 11:37AM

If "Sola Scriptura" is the guiding principle of protestantism why are their bookstores full of other books written by mere humans?

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 11:44AM

Seriously???

That's an absurd question.

Simply because one reads a book by a Christian author does NOT mean that one EQUATES that book with scripture.

That's what Catholics do...

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 12:19PM

Really? In my 16 years in Catholic Schools I must have missed that part.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 2:02PM

I'm not surprised.

Catholics often overlook the things they engage in, and often fail to understand why many of the practices of Catholicism are in direct contradiction to Scripture.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 11:42AM

Yes, of course.

"Cardinal" Newman would say that, wouldn't he?

I'd counter his brilliant (sarcasm intended) statement by saying:

"To be deep in the Bible is to cease being Catholic."

Christian history is NOT "sacramental, liturgical, hierarchical and traditional." That statement is either a blatant, intentional falsehood, or evidentiary of an overwhelming ignorance of Christian history.

Luther et al did NOT come-up with "sola scriptura." For 400 years before the advent of Catholicism, the ONLY reference for Christians were the letters/books of the Old and New Testament. catholics would have you believe that they discovered these letters/books at the Council of Nicea, but that is pure rubbish. These letters/books had been revered for centuries, which is why the Council reviewed them in the first place.

As a Christian, you have several choices, actually:

1. Christianity
2. Denominationalism...including Catholics and Protestants (35,000 sects, and growing!)

Catholicism is in rebellion to God's Word. In that regard, it IS also a form of "Protestantism."

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 12:18PM

"catholics would have you believe that they discovered these letters/books at the Council of Nicea, but that is pure rubbish. These letters/books had been revered for centuries, which is why the Council reviewed them in the first place."

Yes, they were revered for centuries as were many other books such as the Gospels of Peter and Andrew and the letters of Clement. No protestant churchs has gone back and decided that the Catholic Church made a mistake when it excluded those books from the Canon.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 2:04PM

Wrong, again.

No one is disputing the scholarly accumen of the attendees of the Council of Nicea.

However, there ARE differences between the Bible used by Catholics, and by others.

For example, Catholics include the Apocrypha; others do not accept this validation.

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 12:20PM

You also need to read your history.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 12:20PM

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

The Council of Nicea doesn't play any role in the establishment of the canon of the New Testament followed by all major and most minor protestant sects.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 2:07PM

"Bishop" does not mean what Catholics think it means.

It comes from the Greek word "Presbuteros," or "Presbyter," which means "Elder."

Do you know what the Biblical requirements for an "Elder" are???

One of them is that they be the HUSBAND of ONE wife.

That's right; they are supposed to be married.

How many Catholic Bishops are married???

Melito was an "Elder" in Sardis; not a "Bishop" in today's sense of the word.

FYI, the Old Testament predates Christianity.

CJW| 3.20.13 @ 3:35PM

You interpret some phrase in the New Testament that bishops must be married when it can easily be interpreted that the bishop be married only to one woman. You chose to interpret to fit whatever you believe in.
Does the Bible require rabbis to be married?

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 4:26PM

Ummm...

To be "married to only one woman" implies that the Bishop HAS been married.

YES...he is supposed to be married.

And it's NOT just "some phrase;" it's THE phrase that completely unmoors the Catholic view of who and what a "Bishop" is supposed to be.

CJW| 3.20.13 @ 5:55PM

You are wrong. If you believe that "married to only one woman" MANDATES marriage rather than meaning married to only one woman, then you sound like one of the liberal judges twisting the words of the Constitution to reach the result you want..

dominic1955| 3.20.13 @ 2:24PM

Do you even know who John Henry Newman was or how he converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism? He studied history, Scripture, and the Fathers, deeply, and found that the Catholic Church is the Early Church, the Apostolic Church.

I've read the Bible front to back a number of times, plus the Gospels and I continue to read them through the readings at Mass and in the Breviary. I've studied them for years and yes, they are roundly Catholic.

You assert a lot of things. I can give you quotes and books to read in which you can see for yourself what the Early Fathers say about this or that issue, what early liturgies talk about, etc. You bloviate about this being a "blatant, intential falsehood." I'll unfurl our list of bishops, you can give me Boettner or whatever garbage you are going off of.

For approximately the first 300 years, there was no settled Canon of Scripture until the regional Councils of Carthage set them down (and were ratified by Florence and Trent centuries later). The written Scripture was confirmed by Tradition, the Deposit of the Faith. It wasn't the Council of Nicea, that was called to try to settle the Arian crisis and gave us the Nicean Creed.

You're "non-Protestant" Christianity is Protestant whether you want to admit it or not. Nothing new under the sun. Care to tell us which sectarians you align with?

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 4:37PM

How anyone could read the Bible "front to back a number of times" and come away thinking that it is "squarely Catholic" means you weren't reading it with any critical intent.

If so, please justify (with Biblical examples):

1. Infant baptism
2. The seven sacraments
3. Original sin
4. Transubstantiation
5. Mary as "co-redeemer"

None of these five things has ANY BASIS whatsoever in scripture...I guess you didn't notice while you were reading the Bible "fron to back" all those times???

I'm not bloviating; I'm simply disputing - with facts - your over-simplified view of Christianity and Catholicism.

I've alreay covered this point, but to say that "there was no settled Canon of Scripture" until Catholics decided there was is irrelevant and logically incoherent because those books/letters had already been revered by Christians for centuries! That's precisely WHY they were studied for inclusion in the "Canon."

By your logic, if an author like Stephen King sends me a manuscript to publish, I can say it didn't exist until I published it and claim all the credit. Like I said, that's illogical and intellectually dishonest.

Once again...I'm NOT a Protestant. I know that's hard to wrap your Catholic head around, but that's how it is. I do not subscribe to any religious creed, oath, or belief that is NOT found in the Bible.

The "sectarian"s I align myself with are a group called "Christians."

You might want to explore our faith; it's found in this book called "The Bible."

Ryan| 3.20.13 @ 2:11PM

There is plenty historically that just simply was not questioned until people could read the Bible for themselves on the four items you brought up. A lot of tradition - reasonably speaking - does come into question in light of what is written down, and I think the RCC did a large disservice in holding to some traditional stances that just don't hold as much water.

dominic1955| 3.20.13 @ 2:39PM

Most people could not read the Bible (or anything) for themselves, regardless of what language it was in, until the 19th Century at least. The Bible (as a neat package book) is irrelevant-its teaching is what matters. People from the Middle Ages and before were profoundly "biblical" in that they learned their religion from their church's art and the preaching of the priests and bishops. They knew their bible better than today's 'thumpers.

Ryan| 3.20.13 @ 2:51PM

Ack, that last statement is just wrong, I think. People in the Middle Ages didn't have as much information regarding what was tradition and what in tradition did not have support Biblically - it was lack of information as to why a lot was not questioned.

If I remember right, many people didn't attend mass but a few times a year, there were even priests who were illiterate, and not everyone exactly was within walking distance of a church - which may have been lucky to have a copy of the scriptures, in any case.

The printing press did a lot more to spread scripture so it could be digested.

dominic1955| 3.20.13 @ 3:20PM

That first statement is wrong. By and large, people "marinated" in religion-which is more than merely book knowledge. It is, as the Easterners would say, "praxis"-its processions, holy days, fasting, liturgy, prayer, spiritual and corporal works of mercy, etc. etc. None of this absolutely depends on everyone being able to read. There have been (and always will be) folks that didn't care or were ignorant, but the scholastics and clerics (along with plenty of laity) knew very well what was the Tradition of the Church and they knew very well what was in the Bible.

People didn't receive Communion very often because they had a serious (maybe at times overly serious) sense of what it meant, but they usually assisted at Mass and other liturgical services quite frequently. The "Easter Duty" was mandated at Lateran III to make sure people at least confessed and communed once a year.

You have to understand-Christianity isn't about reading a book, any book. Even the saying of Mass doesn't "depend" on having a missal, though by that time it would have been pretty standard. The Word of God is a person, we wrote down some of His teachings.

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 11:35AM

Sorry, as a protestant you must account for at least four factors:

1) Who established the Canon of the New Testament that all major and most minor protestant sects follow? Before it was compiled and pronounced canonical the New Testament were just a number of books that were TRADITIONALLY read during Christian worship as were many other books such as the Gospels of Peter and Andrew and the letters of Clement.

2) Who kept that Testament and the Old Testament alive from the time the books were written until the printing press came along?

3) Who kept the Church from straying into heresies like Arianism, Gnosticism, Manicheanism, Albigensianism etc. for 1500 years?

4) Who spread the message of Christ from the time the last Apostle died until Luther decided to start his own church so he could bang a nun?

You're stuck with only two choices: Roman Catholic or Orthodox.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 11:50AM

I'm NOT a Protestant.

I'm a Christian.

1. I've already answered this question. The letters/books that comprise the Old and New Testaments had been revered for centuries BEFORE the advent of the Catholic Church. That's why they were reviewed and included in your "canon."

2. Christians.

3. When a heresy prevents the spread of other heresies, my attitude is...who cares?

4. Christians.

As a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic who has swallowed every lie the Catholic Church ahs ever taught you, you might want to be careful about references to "banging." After all...quite a few Popes - you know, those guys who supposedly speak on scriptural matters with infallibility? - had mistresses and illegitimate children, so presumably they were "banging" lots of women...as well as molesting boys, and engaging in rampant homosexuality.

You're stuck with only two choices:

1. The truth, or
2. Catholicism

Ryan| 3.20.13 @ 2:08PM

Actually, the Catholic council responses to heresies tend to be pretty sound, Biblically. The Nicaean Creed has a LOT of scriptural strength behind it. It's an excellent summation of what a true Christian should probably believe (I think my only problem is the "descended into Hell" part, but there's enough Biblical evidence for that I can live with.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 3:43PM

I'm unclear as to how a religion steeped in heresy - Catholicism - can be relied upon to judge heresy in others.

In other words, just because they are wrong doesn't make Catholicism right.

Ryan| 3.21.13 @ 8:58AM

Who else was qualified at the time to point out the heresies?

Were they so heretical they were condemned to hell?

Doctor Right| 3.21.13 @ 1:40PM

Anyone who could read the Bible was qualified.

Ryan| 3.21.13 @ 1:52PM

Good luck finding one at that time period. Copies were not exactly floating around. Lack of printing press and all.

And the definite heresies were made by people who read it for themselves as well.

nathan| 3.20.13 @ 1:57PM

Well my choice and my only choice is to be a Christian or not a Christian. To accept Christ as my s(avior or reject Him. What "church" I belong to is irrelevant sort of as long as it preaches that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, that Christ died on the cross as a one time sacrifice for our sins, that by repenting of our sins (Luke 5:32, 13:3) and confessing Christ as Lord over my life (Romans 10:9-10) and believing as God He can and will forgive my sins (Acts 10:45) and grant me eternal life (I John 5:11, 13). That is not church specific. And as long as the church I attend doesn't add or subtract from the Bible (yes I know the Catholic Bible has six Old Testament books not found in protestant Bibles) then we should be okay. The problems potentially come in with doctrines like "purgatory" which no Catholic here can cite a single verse of scripture for. Also protestants preach a "once saved always saved you can't lose/give back your salvation" that Catholics don't agree with. (The verse most often cited, "work out your salvation in fear and trepidation" does not really support a "works" based approach to salvation nor really does any other verse in the the New Testament.)

By faith are ye saved, not through works lest any man should boast. John 3:16, "whosoever BELIEVE shall not perish" we can go on right? This is not church specific folks. Faith is faith not Catholic, not protestant.

Ryan| 3.20.13 @ 2:05PM

That much I agree with. Not sure if you are preaching against Perseverance of the Saints or not, though...but then again, I hold to Calvinist views in general.

nathan| 3.20.13 @ 2:32PM

Well the one verse says there's only one God and one mediator, the Man Christ Jesus. Taken literally that suggests prayers directed at anyone other than Christ or God are useless. Can the Catholics here quote a verse that says prayers directed at the "saints" or Mary will make a difference in light of that verse. If so, fine, but that verse is quite definitive? But Paul is right in the end, what matters is did Christ live die and rise again? If He didn't we're wasting our time here.

Ryan| 3.20.13 @ 2:36PM

Not sure what this is in response to....I agree here...

JP| 3.20.13 @ 1:37PM

"The first Christians were...Christians. Followers of "the Way."
They were NOT Catholics; that is a falsehood that Catholics are either quite happy to spread, or too incurious to explore."

Interesting, as in the 2nd Century, that is about 110 years after Christ died Emporer Decius complained that he would rather hear news about his assasins then hear another word from a Bishop (he was referring to Bishop of Rome, Pope Fabian, who he was about to martyr).

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 2:10PM

"Bishop" does not mean what Catholics think it means.

It comes from the Greek word "Presbuteros," or "Presbyter," which means "Elder."

There were "Christians" when Christ walked the earth. There were Christians during the three-hundred year period between the resurrection and the advent of the Catholic Church.

JP| 3.20.13 @ 3:42PM

So, you are saying that Pope Fabian was not Catholic?

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 3:48PM

In what sense?

There really isn't a lot of information on fabian, and much of it is speculative.

He was a "Presbyter" - Bishop, or Elder - of the church in Rome.

That he may have been a very esteemed Elder is open to discussion, but wholly irrelevant.

Since Catholicism did not exist until Constantine's conversion (>100 years after Fabian's death), I'm not sure how he could be regarded as "Catholic."

More likely, Catholics have retro-fitted Fabian into the pantheon of all things Popey...like Peter.

JP| 3.20.13 @ 5:01PM

Here is what Saint Ireanus, Catholic Bishop of
Antioch wrote to his followers: "Be careful to observe [only] one Eucharist; for there is only one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup of union with his Blood, one altar of sacrifice, as [there is] one bishop with the presbyters and my fellow-servants the deacons." He was referring to the Eucharist.Ireanus was ordained Bishop by Pope Clement around 90AD (Bishop of Rome. The Pope is the only cleric allowed to ordain Bishops).

Bishop Polycarp, who lived between 80AD and 150AD, was a disciple of St John. Roman Emporer Trajan also recorded the elevation of Polycarp and later martyred Saint Ireanus.

CJW| 3.20.13 @ 3:53PM

After Jesus's death His followers were also called Jewish Christians or Christian Jews. It was St Paul who eventually forced the separation of Jesus's followers from the Jewish religion.

According to you, there were Christians after Jesus's death, and then the Catholic Church just sprang up several hundred years after Jesus's death. If that is the case there would have been a parallel "Christian" Church or denomination continuing along with the Catholic Church and later the Byzantine Catholic Church and therefore existing before Luther and Calvin.
What happened to the "Christians" upon the "advent of the Catholic Church" if they were not Catholics?

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 3:59PM

Do you actually think that there were no genuine Christians prior to, or during the advent of Catholicism?

And do you also completely trust Catholic historians of that era to faithfully record this fact?

YES. The Catholic Church "sprang up" in Rome after Constantine adopted Christianity as the OFFICIAL religion of the Empire. That is how the intertwining of Church and State in Catholicism began.

Christians had been in Rome for hundreds of years prior to Constantine's conversion. Those who refused to accept the new, official "catholic" religion were likely persecuted as heretics.

Why is that hard to accept?

CJW| 3.20.13 @ 4:44PM

According to what you just said, the Catholic Church sprang up after Constantine adopted Christianity as the OFFicial relgion of the empire.
Then you said this was the new official "catholic" religion. You just admitted that Christianity and Catholicism were the same.

I agree this started the mixing of state and religion, which I do not support.

So if Christianity was not the same as Catholicism before on the day that Constantine adopted "Christianity" then what happened to the "Official Christianity" religion?

It is hard to accept because your explanations do not make sense, you judgment is clouded by your hatred of the Catholic Church.
Read again my 3:53 and answer if you can.

What your term Christians were the same as Catholics before Constantine.

Unlike you constantly disparaging Catholicism, I am not attacking or disparaging your beliefs, that is your business.

From your comments, it appears you also regard the Jewish religion as no longer valid or justified since it ended on the Cross? So if the Catholics, Jews, and Protestants are all wrong, only you are Right?

JP| 3.20.13 @ 5:07PM

CJW,
This has been a Protestant narrative for awhile. For they now say the Catholic Church didn't come about until Constantine. Before that they argued that the Protestant Church was in hiding between AD100 and AD1520.

The RCC can trace the lineage of every priest and Bishop back to Saint Peter. But, now they say that the early Church Fathers were not Catholic, depsite the amount of writings of the Church Fathers that teach on the Eucharist, Purgatory, Confessions, etc...

Ryan| 3.21.13 @ 9:02AM

Oddly enough, there were plenty of Church Fathers who stated things that were borderline heretical - but not at the time, and their salvation may still have been assured. I've heard it stated that they were "pioneers" in a sense, trying to figure stuff out and occasionally coming to wrong conclusions (usually about the divinity of Christ and nature of the Trinity), as opposed to now, when we have the study and conclusions and clearer access to all the scriptures.

Ryan| 3.21.13 @ 9:02AM

Oddly enough, there were plenty of Church Fathers who stated things that were borderline heretical - but not at the time, and their salvation may still have been assured. I've heard it stated that they were "pioneers" in a sense, trying to figure stuff out and occasionally coming to wrong conclusions (usually about the divinity of Christ and nature of the Trinity), as opposed to now, when we have the study and conclusions and clearer access to all the scriptures.

Ryan| 3.20.13 @ 2:04PM

Who were those Christians, then? Because all Christianity practically fell under the governance of the RCC (or orthodox).

Technically speaking, all Christians ARE either Catholic (including various orthodox, etc) or Protestant. You "Protest" the Catholic church more than a lot of Protestants, in any case.

The term is defined by simply A) Being a Christian and B) Not being Catholic.

FWIW, I'm not a Catholic; but I acknowledge the historical reality that Catholicism WAS Christianity from about 100 AD (when the hierarchy was more or less established) until the Reformation. There was simply no other choice.

The Scriptures were maintained by Catholics. The message was spread by Catholics.

If Christians cannot be Catholic, then there the Promise to Abraham about his seed is undone, because it states that people were condemned to hell for about 1400 years.

nathan| 3.20.13 @ 2:11PM

Sorry the promise to Abraham referred to Jews only and while part of it has been fulfilled, the rest is probably going to wait until after the rapture. The senior pastor preached on this and noted what lands were promised and they include parts of Saudi Arabia which probably means waiting awhile.

Ryan| 3.20.13 @ 2:18PM

Not necessarily. That contradicts Galatians 3

"6 Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

I agree there is something "special" about ethnic Jews, who seem to have an interesting protection about them; however, they are still apostate and not under the promise, which has always been by grace, through faith.

Of course, I think the eschatology of the matter is different than you, with my views leaning more toward Covenant Theology than Dispensationalism. Not a fan of the rapture theology here - it's far too roundabout an interpretation of the end times.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 2:19PM

Judaism ended at the Cross.

Ryan| 3.20.13 @ 2:22PM

Wow, too broad a statement. Jews still practice their beliefs all over the world....and salvation was ALWAYS by grace, through faith. That much is consistent in scripture, OT and NT.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 3:54PM

I didn't say that there were not people who call themselves "Jews" when clearly there are.

What I said was: "Judaism ENDED at the Cross."

It all revolves around the phrase "the Chosen people."

"Chosen" for what??? Just because God thought they were special?

No. "Chosen" to be the people through which God would send His son, the Savior, into the world.

Well, in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies and THE LAW (or, "Judaism"), the Savior came into the world.

Then he was crucified, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven, where He will remain until His return.

Christ FULFILLED The Law. In other words, the Law (Judaism) became defunct at the Cross. It's over. There's no need for Judaism, anymore. It served it's purpose.

Now if this offends anyone who is Jewish, I apologize. Just bear in mind that your opinion of the Savior does not offend me in the slightest.

CJW| 3.20.13 @ 3:54PM

What does that mean, that Judaism ended at the Cross?

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 4:00PM

Read the above.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 2:16PM

There is a distinct difference between "governance," and faith.

Technically speaking, all Christians are NOT either Catholic or Protestant.

Since Christianity predates Catholicism, that statement is prima-facie absurd.

My faith is NOT based on a "protest" of the Catholic Church. I do NOT belong to any denomination, either Catholic or otherwise.

I am a Christian.

That's it.

Not sure why this is hard to understand...

Exactly WHAT "hierarchy" do you refer to "from about 100 AD"???

Christians have existed since the first person decided to follow Christ when He walked the earth.

And your linkage to Abraham is unusual, indeed. That's a new one.

The promise to Abraham was that his seed would give rise to the nation of Israel. The Israelites were God's Chosen people - "chosen" for the purpose of bringing forth the Savior into the world.

There is NO Scriptural link between Abraham and Catholicism.

Ryan| 3.20.13 @ 2:21PM

The Catholic hierarchy developed around 100 AD, and evolved over a couple hundred years.

God's promise was that Abraham would have uncountable descendants. Galatians 3 links these to Christians - not blood. Believers - Christians - are the True Seed of Abraham - not ethnic Jews, unless they profess Christ as Messiah. Judaism is still a salvation by works.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 4:02PM

No, it didn't.

That's completely false.

But even if it were true, please explain how Peter could have ever been the "First Pope"?

After all, he died before 100 AD.

Ryan| 3.21.13 @ 9:08AM

So, when did the Catholic hierarchy develop? When were ministers taking "official" named positions, and the leadership was becoming organized? I can point to various early church figures who were clearly named bishops - such as the Apostolic Fathers, among others.

CJW| 3.20.13 @ 4:07PM

If the Israelites where chosen for the purpose of bringing forth the Savior (Jesus) into the world, then why do the Jews not accept Jesus as the Savior or Messiah? I assume you know the Jews do not accept the divinity of Jesus. If what you say is correct then it would follow that the Jews are smart enough to accept Jesus as the Savior and believe in His Divinity, and then there would be no Jewish religion.

I just read David Klinenhoffer's "Why the Jews rejected Jesus" which deals with these questions. He states "chosen" means chosen to keep God's commandments.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 4:41PM

"If the Israelites where chosen for the purpose of bringing forth the Savior (Jesus) into the world, then why do the Jews not accept Jesus as the Savior or Messiah?"

Because wide is the road that leads to destruction??? MOST people reject Christ; Jews are no different.

Mr. Klinenhoffer also fails to see that his conclusion is not logical.

If "chosen" means "chosen to keep God's commandments," then the obvious follow-up is "For what purpose??"

Because if Mr. Klinenhoffer is correct, then there's no need for Christianity.

Are you OK with that???

CJW| 3.20.13 @ 4:51PM

Mr K reconciles the Jewish and Catholicism and Protestants by saying that the Jews had God, but that others, such as you and me, need Jesus to get to God. I am ok with that since I do not have a direct line to God. Are you ok with it?

That also seems to be Pope John Paul II's rationale to attempt to reconcile the religions.
To keep the commandments to serve God would seem the logical answer.
It is an interesting book recommend to me by a Jewish friend, and you may find it useful.

Ryan| 3.21.13 @ 9:10AM

The problem with that interpretation of Judaism is simply the intent and idea of the Messiah, and the method of salvation. Judaism, through the centuries, believed that following the law was the method, rather than understanding that the law was to show us our sin and lead to repentance and faith in God's grace - which many, such as Abraham, understood (faith credited as righteousness). Judaism's focus is in keeping the letter of the law, but misses its intent.

Doctor Right| 3.21.13 @ 1:44PM

WHY was Pope John Paul II even concerned about "reconciling the religions"???

They are IRRECONCILABLE, by faith and by practice.

If you are a believing Christian, then by definition you MUST also believe that Islam, for example, is wrong. Period.

Ryan| 3.21.13 @ 1:54PM

He did make a push to reconcile Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.

Dodd2| 3.20.13 @ 10:13AM

The institutional Catholic Church will continue its trajectory into irrelevancy under Francis.

Watch and see.

dominic1955| 3.20.13 @ 11:37AM

Irrelevancy doesn't capture the attention of the whole world when it picks a new leader, does it?

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 2:19PM

I guess you weren't watching when Obama was first inauguarated???

dominic1955| 3.20.13 @ 2:41PM

I'm certainly no fan of Obama, but he is anything but "irrelevant". Relevancy can be good or bad, after all...

g wayne| 3.20.13 @ 11:02AM

Nathan, listen to Dr Right. He is right on this one. The casual dress is simply a de-emphisis of having to look a certain way to enter church. Remember the hymn ,"Come as you are"? The liturgical practices have no significant meaning in ones personal relationship with Christ. If the Catholic church wants to be more relevant then it should get rid of the pomp, including the latin mass and focus on what is important, the word of God. Stay where you are at and focus on you personal relationship with Christ. What you need is found between Gen. 1:1 and Rev. 22:21, not in men, Mary, rites, rituals, chatechisms, Vatican I or II, dominion theology, pulpit pimps, church tradition, and so on. Marantha

markenoff| 3.20.13 @ 11:38AM

Yes, don't call be to lift themselves up, dumb it down for the masses (pun intended). Give the people what they want!

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 2:18PM

In that regard, Catholicism and it's myriad of vain, repetitive rituals and it's complete lack of intellectual and spritual rigor is the MOST "dumbed-down" denomination under the Christian umbrella.

JP| 3.20.13 @ 3:46PM

I dare you to debate any Priest concerning Catholic theology. But, I know you won't. AmSpec Combox Wars is as far as you go.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 4:06PM

Invite ANY Priest you know to this blog, and I'll debate him any day.

He won't say anything different from what you're saying.

How do I know that? Because you're simply repeating what they've told you.

I've debated Catholics for years. Like most of the people on this forum who profess Catholicism, they're also unable to rationally justify their faith and it's many inherent contradictions through Scripture. Inevitably, they fall back on "Catholic historians say..." without any sense of irony.

So go tell Father O'Flannery that Doc Right is ready for him.

CJW| 3.20.13 @ 4:12PM

You idea of a debate is to say your are right because you are right, and anything from Catholics and Jews is wrong. You say your are not a Protestant and an ex-Catholic, and everyone who does not agree with your interpretation of the New Testament is wrong.

Doctor Right| 3.20.13 @ 4:43PM

The challenge was issued; I offered acceptance.

Now, somehow, it's MY fault that I didn't back down in abject fear from the idea of a debate with a (shiver!!!) Catholic Priest???

It's not MY interpretation of the New Testament; it's the honest conclusion.

Ryan| 3.21.13 @ 9:11AM

So...which is an honest conclusion - pre-, a-, post-millenialism, preterism?

JP| 3.20.13 @ 4:49PM

Like I said, you are the hero of the Combox wars. But, that isn't debate.

Jack in Wi| 3.20.13 @ 10:25PM

Dr. always wrong: you argue like a Communist. You keep shouting nonsense until everyone just goes away and forgets it. You are just an ignorant anti Catholic bigot who rejects the truth. You have certainly been made a fool many times today.

JP| 3.20.13 @ 1:42PM

And I bet if you were invited to the White House you would wear your finest clothes you could afford?

Catholics believe that when going to Mass they litterally enter the presence of God (not figuratively or spiritually). The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. We also recognize that many people cannot afford expensive clothes. And at Daily Mass people are either on their way to work or just got off work. It's Sunday Mass where most of the concerns lie.

nathan| 3.20.13 @ 2:06PM

Sir we need to ask ourselves what are we trying to accomplish here and what are our end goals? At the church she and I go to, and I bet you to also, at any given service, there are going to be visitors, potentially people who have never been in a church before. This may be the one and only chance you get with this person. ONE TIME ONLY. Now take that Sunday mass, or the Sunday service of my youth. If we make that one time visitor uncomfortable, make him feel unwanted, then what difference does the service make? Yes the service is to help the Christians in the congregation be better Christians, granted. And that's been the case for me, big time. But if we ignore the needs of the that visitor who we get one time with, one time only, then we aren't doing what we're supposed to do, help bring the lost home with us. Which is why sorry, the Latin mass which WFB so dearly loved, missed the point. The beggar that wanders in off the street and can barely speak English, well WFB could speak who knows how many languages but it's not about him, it's about that beggar who so very much needs Christ and needs the message presented in a language HE can understand and he needs to feel comfortable and welcome in that building. Again Dr. King was right, keep our eye on the prize here.

dominic1955| 3.20.13 @ 3:08PM

Prince and pauper darken the door of the Catholic Church-all are welcome. If you are a first time visitor, no one is going to kick you out over decorum issues. If you have been around for awhile, you should have picked up on how to dress. I'm reminded of the parable that speaks about the man who showed up to the banquet w/o a wedding garment. While its primarily about sanctifying grace, our outward comportment should reflect what we believe and the reverence we hold for what we are going to participate in.

I go almost exclusively to the Traditional Latin Mass, but also go to the Eastern Divine Liturgy (of St. John Chrysostom) and go to the Novus Ordo once in awhile. There is much more to communicating the divine than words. The "smells and bells" of the TLM and the DL communicate much more effectively than mere words can, although that is present as well. The depths of the Divine Mysteries cannot be contained in human constructs anyway, so its all the more appropriate that they be communicated to humans in multiple modes. Beauty often speaks more elequently than didacticism anyway.

Peter| 3.20.13 @ 11:31AM

"The liturgical practices have no significant meaning in ones personal relationship with Christ" utter nonsense... how pray effects what we believe which effects how we live our lives......ravings of another protestant

cicero| 3.20.13 @ 11:49AM

I will have to take a wait and see attitude on this one. I was pretty impressed by what I had read, up until this morning when it was reported that Biden and Pelosi were welcomed to the altar for communion, even given their open views, and action in support of, abortion on demand. I would have been impressed had Pope Francis I hadd one of his asssistants quietly inform the U.S. delegation prior to the ceremony that they would not be allowed to partake. That would have avoided embarrassment, and sent a clear moral message.

So, I will wait and see. I am not so concerned about the ceremonials.

Petronius| 3.20.13 @ 12:00PM

Biden and Pelosi were given Holy Communion. No reason for any optimism. Pope Francis wants a poor church and he'll get it when we are all bankrupt. The congregations will still be compelled to pay and get nothing in return like they get now.

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 3.20.13 @ 4:51PM

That is a troubling sign. The Church should excommunicate those who actively use public policy to legitimize and promote grave sins such as abortion and homosexuality. The Pope is human however and he wouldn't be the first Pope or powerful religious figure (such as an Orthodox Patriarch or a Muslim Grand Mufti or a chief Rabbi) to make decisions based on political expediency rather than core religious conviction. Indeed the history of religion is full of such men, because men don't stop having temptations toward evil just because they put on the clothes of a Holy Man. Indeed in recent times many have used and abused such positions either for power, wealth or to satisfy their own sexual perversions or a mix of all three.

Petronius| 3.20.13 @ 8:03PM

Cesare Borgia?

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 3.20.13 @ 9:42PM

Exactly

Jack in Wi| 3.20.13 @ 10:21PM

Rodriego borgia: Cesare and Lucretia were his children long before he was Pope. Pope Alexander the Sixth may have been a bad person in life but even he did some good things. In 1494 he decreed that the American Indains were human beings deserving of good treatment. That hs decree wasn't followed wasn't his fault.

Vance P. Frickey| 3.22.13 @ 5:32AM

But Rodrigo, as anyone who has watched the splendid miniseries The Borgias can tell you, also didn't restrain himself from atrocities, some of which don't bear repeating on a family Web site (those who're old enough, Google "infans Romanum" or visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Borgia_(Infans_Romanus), unleashing Cesare Borgia on the Sforzas and the Italian States in general, and perhaps being the spiritual godfather of Vatican banking. He did place some restraints on the Inquisition , but those and his papal decree that the American Indians ought to be treated decently would have been taken more seriously if the rulers of Spain and Portugal had faced excommunication for breaking them. But he did break Savonarola's "people's republic" in Florence. Even the Medicis were an improvement over that.

ef| 3.20.13 @ 12:08PM

I hope and pray that all the liberal salivators are dead wrong. Rather than succumb to despair, I'm holding out hope that he will surprise the 'catholic' progressive's yearning for something other than the Roman Catholic Church.

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 3.20.13 @ 4:36PM

Must the new Pope Francis the First be automatically viewed through the lenses of human political reasoning? Before we stamp him "liberal" or "conservative" in the CNN/Fox News fashion isn't it more important to wait and see if he does his job as Pope and holds fast to the core doctrines of the faith and Catholic tradition? Furthermore if he holds to the social doctrine of the Catholic faith isn't he no less a traditionalist regarding Catholic teaching on such issues? After all capitalism as it is practiced through much of the world would fall under the category of usury which the Roman Catholic Church has considered a grave sin since the beginning of modern capitalism. When I was a Roman Catholic traditionalist (I attended the Tridentine Latin Mass st St. Margaret Mary's in Oakland which was in full communion with Rome) I eventually came to the realization that if I continued on the path of trying to be "more Catholic" than the Pope and the Church I would eventually end up a schismatic or a "God forbid" a Protestant. This realization eventually led me to embrace the pre-schism (Great Schism of the 11th century) Church as embodied by the Eastern Orthodox faith.

Vance P. Frickey| 3.22.13 @ 5:18AM

Capitalism has made the formation of a middle class possible, and thus has amplified the reach of the Church to the extent that the members of the middle class and the rich can make more and more missions and good works possible for the Church. The Catholic Church in the United States has a system of hospitals which provides health care to the indigent at a cost much, much lower to society than Obamacare; and the level of healthcare at the Catholic hospitals I have been treated at is far above the norm. This, too, is due to capitalism as the wealthy and middle-class share their wealth willingly - from firm Christian conviction - with the Church so it may do good works.

Your equation of capitalism with usury sounds very high-minded until we examine the alternative - very much like what Obama is leading us toward, in which the government is all powerful, not subject to audit or control by the People, and the People are thrust back into a pre-capitalist nightmare of poverty as the engine that has raised most of us out of a short, nasty peasant existence breaks. You also conveniently forget how the crowned heads of Europe, those who the Church supported as God's appointed leaders, actively sought out usurers on the grand scale to finance their wars and their castles (when they weren't despoiling the Church for the same reason).

Jim Sweeney| 3.20.13 @ 6:21PM

You're simply disrespectful of others. Words from you and yours are not worthy.

Vance P. Frickey| 3.22.13 @ 5:05AM

As an Episcopalian myself (therefore, stay tuned to BBC to see if we're still in the Anglican Communion tomorrow) I couldn't be happier if dissident Anglicans, including the soi-disant ones from the United States of America, went to Rome. I don't even care if the screen door hits 'em on their way out of the parish hall.

Vance P. Frickey| 3.22.13 @ 5:09AM

Church liberals ALWAYS think the NEXT Pope will be the one leading the Church into the Promised Land of Catholic support for abortion, which is a topic on which women shouldn't be badgered either way and rooting for the government in power as long as it's leftist. They'll always be disillusioned, because the Church isn't ABOUT making people happy. It's about making them HOLY.

More Articles by George Neumayr

More Articles From Special Report

Tornado Chasers

May 24, 2013 | Claire Healey

The Inoperative Jay Carney

May 23, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Disabling American Sovereignty

May 22, 2013 | Iain Murray & Geoffrey McLatchey

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

May 21, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

May 20, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/20/reading-the-papal-tea-leaves

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|43 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|58 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|89 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|33 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|25 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 5.24.13

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 5.24.13

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

Most Popular Articles

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.23.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

Lerner's Plea

Ray V. Hartwell | 5.23.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer | 5.23.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.