Ordinariate priest fisks KJS

Fr. Matthew Venuti examines Katherine Jefferts-Schori’s astonishing take on St. Paul’s deliverance of the slave girl from a demonic spirit of divination.   Here is an excerpt that includes his speculations as to why the Episcopalian leader would come up with such strange notions:

So lets go back to what KJS said: “Paul is annoyed at the slave girl who keeps pursuing him, telling the world that he and his companions are slaves of God….Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness.  Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it.”  According to my own exegesis, the New Oxford Annotated Bible, the Navarre Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paul expelled a demon, and the KJS says this act of expulsion in the name of Jesus was done out of annoyance and deprived the slave girl of a gift.

There is no way around the fact that this is some strange exegesis, certainly novel, and alien to Christian tradition.  Looking at the sermon as a whole, and at this section in particular, I have a come up with a few possibilities as to what this all means about Bishop Jefforts Shori’s theology.  I’ll list in order from unlikely to likely
4) She thinks demon possession is a good thing, even a gift, that should not be tampered with by Christians.
3) She thinks demons are bad, but God let the slave girl get possessed and than exploited by her owners to teach us lesson about diversity.
2) She does not believe in demons and rejects the identification of the spirit as one.  The connections St. Luke makes between the the Pythia of the Delphi Oracle and the spirit is either an act of prejudice by St. Luke, or a statement that God  was directly involved with the Pythia and maybe we should have let the Greeks keep their pagan riutals.
1) She decided what the topic, beginning and end of her sermon was before hand, THEN looked at the text in a cursory fashion.  She then tried to manipulate the texts into saying what she was preaching, and made a really big mistake without realizing it.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Ordinariate priest fisks KJS

  1. Pingback: Ordinariate priest fisks KJS | Catholic Canada

  2. Ioannes says:

    KJS is a swine who tramples on the pearls of the faith.

    Let her join the ranks of Marcion, Arius, and all others, for she is not the child of God but the spawn of the Devil.

    God Bless Fr. Venuti for carrying on the tradition of wrecking heresy and error with reason, faith, and truth. I wish I could say the same for other clerics and bishops who remain silent with nary a word of defense of the Faith.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Ioannes,

      You wrote: God Bless Fr. Venuti for carrying on the tradition of wrecking heresy and error with reason, faith, and truth. I wish I could say the same for other clerics and bishops who remain silent with nary a word of defense of the Faith.

      I’m not so sure that official public comment from the magisterium of the Catholic Church is indicated here.

      >> 1. The membership of The Episcopal Church (TEC), of which the individual in question holds the position of primate, is dwindling rapidly and likely will continue to do so. Quite simply, God has no use for ecclesial communities that are not faithful to the Word of God, so the Holy Spirit draws people away therefrom until they whither and die.

      >> 2. Historically, the writings of heretics and apostates have disappeared while their teachings live on in the condemnations thereof. If errors are going to fade into oblivion anyway, it’s not exactly desirable to issue condemnations that, in reality, will only preserve them.

      >> 3. And in this case, the errors are already addressed in existing documents promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that remain in force. Thus, there’s little more to say.

      Norm.

      • Ioannes says:

        Well! That’s good to hear!

        But eventually, people tend to not read anything and forget everything. So it’ll come again in a few centuries, posing as something “Totally New and Different”

        For example, I was horribly surprised to learn that Jehovah’s Witness is related to Arianism (4th century) and that Unitarian, non-trinitarian “Christianity” exists.

        It’s like we’re back to the pre-Edict of Milan situation where everyone has different ideas about Jesus, and most of them already proven wrong by Church Fathers, yet those wrong ideas are now defended by “civil rights” no matter how defamatory and false.

      • Ioannes says:

        And, I guess without an “Emperor” to protect Christian Orthodoxy, we’ll see a return of various “Gospel according to Barack” and “Gospel according to Katherine Jefferts-Schori” or “Secret Gospel according to Dan Brown” and they will attract -multitudes- to Hell.

        Who shall be the brave and fearless bishop of our time who will deck these heretics in the schnoz? When a leading Cardinal, whose name rhymes with Schmolan, thinks a politician who supports abortion is a “Catholic in unquestionably good standing” I just cannot see an Athanasius or a Chrysostom, or an Augustine, or even an Aquinas or an Anselm or an Irenaeus among our leaders. With probably the great and glorious exception of Pope Benedixt XVI, and other clerics of the Traditionalist Movement.

  3. BCCatholic says:

    Most of your formerly ACCC fellow parishioners left the “Canterbury Communion” three or four decades ago, or like yourself were never a member of it. Why does it still bring pleasure to bash this person? Not that I am defending her in any way; I am just saying “What is this to me?”

    • Ioannes says:

      The Episcopal Church is a religion that follows people, and the Roman Catholic Church is a religion that people follow.

      I don’t think it is pleasure, as so much outrage from statements that are said- it wouldn’t have mattered any more than when some pseudointellectual “New Atheist” rambles on about God’s non-existence, except that this person is head of a large segment of Protestants (2,125,012 baptized, as of 2010) and so one has a -moral- obligation to cast down this heretic and convert those misled by her or support her because of their similar mentalities.

      That is to say, she, like Obama, are tools of the diabolical and we cannot settle for “inoffensive” and “charitable” words if we shall ever cut through their half-truths and other falsehoods.

      There is a reason why Pelagianism and Donatism no longer exist as a part of the Roman Catholic Church, nor do people on the streets even know and remember what those are and it did not involve St. Augustine having a nice fire-side chat with inoffensive, diplomatic, “charitable” language. Are we going to start calling Satan an “angel” now and pretend that he does not seek our destruction? Are we going to pretend that he does not exist nor does he exert significant influence, yes, even within a Church comprised of sinners even less with those who are not a member of the Church Jesus Christ established?

      We cannot say this woman, and those who subscribe to her “religion” are even Christians, without a certain amount of self-deception, and so in all honesty, we must bring up the bitter truth, that this woman is a “Cleric” any more than Satan is an “Angel.” She must be challenged and in doing so we challenge ourselves to see what we know when we have confronted error.

      Let those “Ecumenical” bishops and clergy pretend that they see the Episcopal Church as an equal, and we shall see a number of people who can only take from such a stance that there -is no difference- between their church and the True Church, and so there is no reason to take any of their claims seriously unless they find it profitable to their own selfish ends.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: … except that this person is head of a large segment of Protestants…

        The official position of the Catholic Church is that the Anglican Communion is NOT Protestant. Rather, like the Orthodox Communion, it is a distinct non-Protestant entity. This is because the Anglican Schism was fundamentally political rather than theological, and it was only in the following century that the Anglican Communion adopted elements of Protestant (Lutheran and Calvinist) theology and practice.

        You wrote: That is to say, she, like Obama, are tools of the diabolical and we cannot settle for “inoffensive” and “charitable” words if we shall ever cut through their half-truths and other falsehoods.

        As Christians, our fundamental vocation is to build up the true Church, the Bride of Christ, and we are failing in this vocation when we spend our time tearing down and trying to destroy others. Rather, our objective should be to bring those who advocate and live in ways of sin to repentance so that they might rejoin the family of God. We need to speak the truth in love. The component of love for the sinner seems to be missing from what you advocate. Whether any of us like the fact or not, Jesus shed his blood for the salvation of Katherine Jefferts-Schori, too, and God continues to offer it even as she chooses to reject it. And it’s also imperative to remember that there, but for the grace of God, are you and I, so some humility is in order.

        Norm.

      • Don Henri says:

        I don’t agree, Norm. Rome puts the Anglicans in the same bag as the Lutherans et al, naming them very much officially “Ecclesial communities born out of the Reformation”. If it is not a polite way to say “Protestant”, I don’t know what it is. It doesn’t really matter some Anglicans are close to us in faith, after all Lutherans too believe in the Real Presence, and like to dress-up with chasubles and miters, and claim apostolic succession. But in the “protestant bag” there are surely differences, and indeed Rome is more prone to dialog with those communities where substantial aspects of the Catholic faith have been kept.
        Moreover, it is not possible at all to compare the way Rome sees the Anglican Communion with the way it sees the Orthodox and Pre-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches. Those are Churches in the true sense of the word, where true sacraments have been kept (you may think as I do that it’s a mere accident of history, and that the so called “orthodox” are merely Eastern Protestants, but Rome doesn’t agree with me on this 😉 ).

        + pax et bonum

      • Ioannes says:

        Norm,

        It should be noted that the long, formal name of the Episcopal Church (the Anglican province in the United States) is the “Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.”

        You wrote: “The Official Position of the Catholic Church is that the Anglican Communion is NOT Protestant.” Care to cite some documents, please? I refuse to acknowledge a “church” that ordain women “priests” and “bishops” while their sacraments and ordinations are invalid. Statements by local heretical bishops and priests who advocate homosexual pseudogamy and.. “ecumenism”… do not count. I don’t care how many degrees they hold, they’re wrong.

        If they are not in communion with the Pope of Rome, they are SCHISMATICS. If they’re not Orthodox Schismatics, they’re PROTESTANTS. For the Church of England was established during the ENGLISH REFORMATION, which is a part of the PROTESTANT REFORMATION of the 16th century. How many times have Anglicans called themselves “Protestant” throughout history? With a “Protestant” monarch? With a “Protestant” faith? If I were Orthodox and I saw Eastern Catholics with Orthodox vestments and churches and liturgies, it wouldn’t make those Catholics any more Orthodox than Anglicans are turned into Catholics.

        Anglicans have a Protestant Theology, is NOT a Church the same way the Orthodox are a Church, for they have a Table, not an Altar; they have INVALID ORDERS, and the perpetrators to the murder both physical and spiritual of many by false teachings and persecution. You dare insult the memory of those martyrs by suddenly making a “fellow Catholic” of Cranmer and Henry VIII? Would you call them preservers of the Orthodox faith when they wrecked monasteries and murdered priests!? They are not even on the same theological and liturgical level as the Orthodox! I would rather see all of the Anglican church buildings be turned Catholic before acknowledging that Anglicans are not Protestants- they ARE Protestants, and all they gained they stole from the Catholic Church. It is right that they should all convert, that’s right, CONVERT to Catholicism or else they will wither and die.

        There is no such thing as “Catholic Lite” and the dilution of faith infuriates me so. You are either Catholic or you are not. It would not matter if you are Orthodox or Protestant, without the Pope you are not Catholic, and so you are outside the Church God established upon Peter. Unity comes at a distant second from the Truth, and when the Truth is put aside for “Unity”, then Truth suffers, and all of humanity suffers as a consequence. That is all I have to say about “Ecumenism.”
        ——

        Regarding KJS?

        When you say “love” for the sinner, what comes to my mind is the sort of “love” that amounts to warm-fuzzies that have nothing to do with supernaturally infused virtue expressed in a manner directed by the will and grounded in Truth.

        Love and mercy for the sinner is not the same as tolerating the wrong things they say and do. You know this. It has everything to do with stopping their sin and correcting them so they can do good. What if they are stubborn in their ways? Will you choose to “love” the sinner at the expense of the just? Frankly, I’d rather die than sin- but God has given us the sacrament of Confession for when we cannot avoid it. Do they even have confessions in the Episcopal church?

        I would rather DIE than say anything positive about what KJS teaches, and unless she changes what she says and -converts- to the Catholic faith, she will die. Her blood would be on the hands of those who had the ability but failed to dissuade her. (Ezekiel 3:18)

        No matter how well you garden, weeds will choke the things you care for. Thus, we must pull out the weeds first. Some people are better gardeners, others are better weed-pullers. Some are better farmers, others are better at shooting vermin and other sorts of pests that steal crops and kill livestock.

        I advocate forgiveness of the sinner. If they realize their wrongdoing and convert with sincere intent of restitution and loving God. I do NOT advocate handing out forgiveness for them to trample on and to ignore something that precious while they continue to offend God with their wickedness. Forgiveness is precious, it is not to be taken lightly, and so while it is freely given, it is not unconditional. God reaches out to the sinner, and if the sinner won’t reach back, I need to get a bit more pushy, a bit more forceful, a bit more annoying.

        I do not deny that God died for all of us, but not all of us accepts what He offers. They would rather spit out the Precious Blood of Our Lord and drink grape juice.

        Frankly, it’s not worth going to Heaven if I’m the only one there. I’d rather that everyone is in Heaven, but the truth is that not everyone will be there because there are people like KSJ. And that infuriates me.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Don,

        You wrote: Rome puts the Anglicans in the same bag as the Lutherans et al, naming them very much officially “Ecclesial communities born out of the Reformation”. If it is not a polite way to say “Protestant”, I don’t know what it is.

        Not so. Look at the decree Unitatis redintegratio on ecumenism promulgated by the Second Vatican Council. The following paragraph appears in No. 13 of that document (boldface added).

        Other divisions arose more than four centuries later in the West, stemming from the events which are usually referred to as “The Reformation.” As a result, many Communions, national or confessional, were separated from the Roman See. Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican Communion occupies a special place.

        Thus, the council itself distinguishes the Anglican Communion from the many Protestant bodies.

        You wrote: It doesn’t really matter some Anglicans are close to us in faith, after all Lutherans too believe in the Real Presence, and like to dress-up with chasubles and miters, and claim apostolic succession.

        With that, I agree, with the caveat that there are also other Protestant denominations that are now teaching the real presence of Christ in the eucharist.

        That said, the distinction between the Anglican Communion and Protestant denominations arises from the fact that the Anglican Schism was primarily political whereas the Protestant Reformation was primarily theological. It’s tragic that the Anglican Communion subsequently adopted elements of Protestant theology and lost the apostolic succession, but this was not true intially.

        You wrote: But in the “protestant bag” there are surely differences, and indeed Rome is more prone to dialog with those communities where substantial aspects of the Catholic faith have been kept.

        Actually, the Vatican’s engagement in ecumenical dialog is very broad and includes all sorts of denominations — even Baptists, Evangelicals, and Pentacostals. Even the Taize community has drawn very close to the Vatican, and that its leaders are frequent visitors thereto.

        You wrote: Moreover, it is not possible at all to compare the way Rome sees the Anglican Communion with the way it sees the Orthodox and Pre-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches. Those are Churches in the true sense of the word, where true sacraments have been kept…

        Yes, this is true. But this is also true of the churches of the Union of Scranton (that is, the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) here in North America and the Nordic Catholic Church in Scandanavia) in the west. Clergy of the Old Catholic Communion (Union of Utrecht) ordained before 2005 or so also have undisputed sacramental orders and thus still confer sacraments other than orders validly (there’s now a defect of intent in their conferral of sacramental orders). But these bodies also are NOT Protestant.

        You continued: … (you may think as I do that it’s a mere accident of history, and that the so called “orthodox” are merely Eastern Protestants, but Rome doesn’t agree with me on this ).

        No, I agree with Rome on this. The term “Protestant” correctly refers only to denominations formed by who split from the Catholic Church over theological errors that arose in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries or descended therefrom.

        Norm.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: It should be noted that the long, formal name of the Episcopal Church (the Anglican province in the United States) is the “Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.”

        There’s little doubt that Protestant influences historically were much stronger in this province of the Anglican Communion than in any other. I’m not aware of any other province of the Anglican Communion that ever included the word “Protestant” in its legal name. One cannot assume that a whole denomination is Protestant just because one of its provinces happened to include that adjective in its title.

        You wrote: If they are not in communion with the Pope of Rome, they are SCHISMATICS.

        Splitting hairs, those who severed communion were schismatics. Note this clear statement from the Second Vatican Council in No. 3 of the decree Unitatis redintegratio on ecumenism (boldface added).

        But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.

        You wrote: If they’re not Orthodox Schismatics, they’re PROTESTANTS. For the Church of England was established during the ENGLISH REFORMATION, which is a part of the PROTESTANT REFORMATION of the 16th century.

        No, you cannot assume that all Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox must be Protestant. In fact, there are many Christian denominations that do not fall neatly into these three categories — the ancient oriental churches, the churches of the Union of Scranton, and the Old Catholic Communion established by the Union of Utrecht, for example. The Anglican Communion, and by extension the various “continuing Anglican” bodies, also do not fit into any of these three categories.

        You wrote: Anglicans have a Protestant Theology, is NOT a Church the same way the Orthodox are a Church, for they have a Table, not an Altar; they have INVALID ORDERS, and the perpetrators to the murder both physical and spiritual of many by false teachings and persecution.

        Let’s go point by point.

        >> It is not accurate to say that Anglicans have a Protestant theology. Rather, some groups of Anglicans have adopted some elements of Protestant theology. One finds very little Protestant theology in so-called “Anglo-Catholic” groups.

        >> From a standpoint of eucharistic theology, the altar is the table of the eucharistic banquet, so both terms actually are correct.

        >> Anglicans did not lose apostolic succession until Protestant theological influences within the Church of England led to adoption of invalid rites of ordination nearly a century after the Anglican Schism.

        >> And in the years that followed the Anglican Schism, there was plenty of blood shed on both sides. The queen known as “Bloody Mary” — a Catholic — got that nickname for the slaughter of Protestants that occurred during her reign.

        You wrote: There is no such thing as “Catholic Lite” and the dilution of faith infuriates me so. You are either Catholic or you are not. It would not matter if you are Orthodox or Protestant, without the Pope you are not Catholic, and so you are outside the Church God established upon Peter. Unity comes at a distant second from the Truth, and when the Truth is put aside for “Unity”, then Truth suffers, and all of humanity suffers as a consequence. That is all I have to say about “Ecumenism.”

        You can’t be more Catholic than the pope. In rebelling against the agenda set by the magisterium, one shows one’s self NOT to be truly Catholic.

        You asked: Do they even have confessions in the Episcopal church?

        Yes, they actually do.

        Not sacramentally valid, of course, but that detail does not stop God from working through the underlying sincere repentance.

        You wrote: I would rather DIE than say anything positive about what KJS teaches, and unless she changes what she says and -converts- to the Catholic faith, she will die…

        I actually agree that she needs to convert, but only because she seems to have fallen personally into apostasy (that is, complete abandonment of Christian faith) and thus no longer seems to be Christian.

        But having said that, even an Atheist can manifest virtue, and virtue is praiseworthy even if manifest by a non-Christian. One must be discerning, praising that which is worthy of praise and condemning that which merits condemnation.

        Or would you accuse her of lying if she were to say that the sky is blue on a sunny day?

        You wrote: Frankly, it’s not worth going to Heaven if I’m the only one there. I’d rather that everyone is in Heaven, but the truth is that not everyone will be there because there are people like KSJ. And that infuriates me.

        Then the issue is what one does with the fury. One can fly into an intemperate rage, thus doing Satan’s bidding, or one can channel the energy into constructive action to further the Kingdom. Note Galatians 5:13-26 (boldface added).

        You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

        So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

        The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

        But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

        Norm.

    • Don Henri says:

      She is damaging the unity of the Christian witness in the US. We Catholics have a right to object to what leaders of others Churches do when it discredits Christianity as a whole. For example, when the Reformed Church in Switzerland advocated gay marriage, its leadership was blasted by the Episcopal Conference.
      + pax et bonum

  4. EPMS says:

    When Christian leaders burn Korans or encourage their followers to display “God hates fags” signs at a soldier’s funeral, Christianity is discredited in the eyes of the public. This sermon, on the other hand, wouldn’t draw the slightest attention outside a narrow group of TEC-bashers.

    • Ioannes says:

      They’re both false religions. While you can hardly call Westboro Baptist a “church,” (really, having a religion comprised only of your relatives don’t count. It’s more like a cult.) the Episcopal Church is a religion that follows the people’s will, not God’s will. If people of that church are all atheists or homosexuals, or republicans, or 11th century Icelandic immigrants, guess what kind of interpretation they’ll have from Scripture? Something that won’t make them have a metanoia. Something that won’t make them repent and convert. After all, why change, when you’re perfectly sinless?

      This is happening in the Catholic Church, all these people complaining about what a giant guilt-fest the Catholic Church is, they’d prefer we follow the Protestant way and say to ourselves “I’m okay, you’re okay, everything is fine.” ….It does little to prepare people for the reality of a cruel world, a world that put to death the most perfect, sinless and holy man who walked the Earth, and those who follow and love Him dearly. This is why many become atheists. You can tell by their objections against the belief in the existence of God: “If God exists, why is there much suffering in the world?” It is an emotional issue, rather than an intellectual one; it’s encouraged by the mentality “I’m okay, you’re okay, everything is fine.”

      WBC, however stupid they are, really burn with passion. They’re passionate about what they hate, but it doesn’t have any deeper level than that- it’s like protesting about the Amish. “God hates the Amish” but then who really cares? They are a one-trick pony, no different from the really angry atheists I mentioned earlier- their issue is an emotional issue, and so it’s worthless to try and reason with them. They do get more attention, however. “God hates fags” and “Religion is evil” get more attention than “I’m okay, you’re okay, everything is fine.”

      Hate, love, hot, cold, they’re better than the lukewarm. At the End of Time, God will vomit the lukewarm out of His mouth.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: While you can hardly call Westboro Baptist a “church,” (really, having a religion comprised only of your relatives don’t count. It’s more like a cult.)…

        In the frontier days, there were many towns with so few original settlers that all of the members of the second or third and subsequent generations born therein were either siblings or cousins. In many farming communities today, that’s still the case. In such communities, the local congregations clearly reflect this reality: all of their members are related. This is likely also true of Catholic congregations in such areas.

        That said, it’s not clear to me that “religion” is the right word in reference to this congregation. I deplore their manner of political protest, but the moral teaching upon which they base their protest is fundamentally correct. I have not seen any indication that they don’t teach all of the precepts of the Nicene Creed or otherwise departed from Christian doctrine. As best I can tell, they depart from the core of Christian doctrine only when they say that God hates certain classes of sinners. Although God deplores all sin, God created the sinners, still loves them, and calls them to repentance.

        You continued: … the Episcopal Church is a religion that follows the people’s will, not God’s will.

        Hmmm….

        You might be onto something here. The leaders of The Episcopal Church (TEC) clearly have abandoned the gospel and, with it, essential truths of Christian faith. At this point, I’m getting the impression that they have gone beyond heresy and fallen into apostasy, constituting a religion that is no longer fundamentally Christian. Nevertheless, it’s not clear that all of the members, or even all of the clergy, of TEC adhere to the leaders’ doctrinal errors.

        One cannot pin this on the rest of the Anglican Communion, though. The provinces of the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) and the associated Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), which constitute over two thirds of the Anglican Coummunion, have supported the formation of a new province of the Anglican Communion, called the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), in the United States and Canada that adheres to authentic Christian doctrine, and are now pushing for the formal expulsion of TEC and the Anglican Church in Canada (ACC) from the Anglican Communion due to their heresies and formal recogntion of ACNA as the only province of the Anglican Communion in North America, even threatening to sever communion with Canterbury if this does not happen soon. Stay tuned.

        You wrote: If people of that church are all atheists or homosexuals, or republicans, or 11th century Icelandic immigrants, guess what kind of interpretation they’ll have from Scripture? Something that won’t make them have a metanoia. Something that won’t make them repent and convert. After all, why change, when you’re perfectly sinless?

        Unfortunately, I have heard preaching from more than a few Catholic clergy that was as atrocious.

        Norm.

      • Ioannes says:

        From what I can surmise, looking at the history of Anglicanism, it probably went downhill after a certain conference in Lambeth during the 1930’s where people suddenly decided contraception is permissible. Certainly they had “good intentions” about that, and we know what they say about good intentions- they pave the road to Hell.

        It makes me wonder if people don’t go to hell because they had the good intentions even though they were responsible for the horrible things their good intentions led to? The teaching of the Catholic Church, or maybe an interpretation of what she teaches, makes it seem like people are not going to hell for belonging to a false religion, as long as they do “good things”- I think Pope Francis said something about that recently, and boy oh boy, many pretend-Catholics seem to be going wild with joy about how they can be gay, be “married” , AND be a good Catholic! One can support abortion (but personally be against it, lol, whatever the hell that means) AND be a good Catholic!

        Faith without good works may be dead, but good works without faith seems okay!

        I guess I should become an atheist and just do good things, I’d worship God in doing good things anyway, even though I’d prefer to live as if He doesn’t exist. It certainly gets rid of that pesky “doctrine” business- because I can be a religion unto myself and be a “good person” even if I don’t believe in God, because I know what’s best in my life, that I am the ultimate judge of my own good. Oh, and please don’t try to re-convert me to Catholicism- that’s offensive and uncharitable, isn’t it?

        You know, I know plenty of atheists who are “good people” and maybe they’re right about what they say about themselves- they don’t need religion; if they’re “good people” then they can go to heaven by virtue of their goodness, and the people who speak for what I consider to be the One True Religion established by Jesus Christ seem to agree with them.

        Oh, what’s that? There’s no salvation outside the Church? That’s so Pre-Vatican 2, you know!

      • Ioannes says:

        Norm:

        You wrote: “Unfortunately, I have heard preaching from more than a few Catholic clergy that was as atrocious.”

        I am infuriated by this fact, because it is how the Catholic Church, at least in places where she used to be strongest and prosperous, have become desolate ruins, or on their way to such a state. The Church of Jesus Christ, His Bride with whom He is united in mystical marriage, His Mystical Body, deserves better! The Church deserves better than the sort of thing I hear from the pulpit on Sundays. People -died- for Jesus Christ and His Church! I certainly am not inspired to be a martyr, a witness, for the Church, if all there is to the Church is what I hear on Sunday, some inoffensive, soft-spoken, politically correct homily on how great we are and how we should reform the immigration law in the United States so a certain demographic can come over and fill the pews and recover the number the Church had been hemorrhaging the last few decades. Because “that’s what Jesus would’ve done.”

        People left the Church because of bad catechism. Because of naivete on the part of the bishops- they even admitted it, at least on the issue of the recent draft of Canon Law- this naivete is how perverts and predators came into the Church, destroying from within, espousing soft-headed, nice-sounding platitudes and calling it “catechism” and the many, many careerists who prospered because of it. People left because they became intellectually unsatisfied with what the Church offered them, and insulted by the notion that it’s none of their business to learn about their own faith, or to be unable to suggest to Father that HE’S WRONG on an important issue due to intimidation.

        This is the Church I belong to. Am I supposed to not have outrage? Am I supposed to be lost in my own apathy while these WOLVES destroy what was handed down to us by the Son of God?

        It’s probably easier to ignore all of this and be like the other 80-90% of Catholics who just sit in the pews, who pay, pray, and sometimes obey. And turn a blind eye to anything that will make me think critically about anything.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: The teaching of the Catholic Church, or maybe an interpretation of what she teaches, makes it seem like people are not going to hell for belonging to a false religion, as long as they do “good things”- I think Pope Francis said something about that recently, and boy oh boy, many pretend-Catholics seem to be going wild with joy about how they can be gay, be “married” , AND be a good Catholic! One can support abortion (but personally be against it, lol, whatever the hell that means) AND be a good Catholic!

        Rather, this is a gross distortion of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

        And tragically, like nearly all heresies that gained any traction whatsoever, it originated with and was/is propagated by ignorant clergy.

        You wrote: Faith without good works may be dead, but good works without faith seems okay!

        Rather, the scripture text which says that faith without works is dead goes on to say, “You show me your faith without works, and I will show you the faith that underlies my works.” True “good works” are the fruit of faith, and don’t exist without it!

        That said, there are two factors to consider.

        >> 1. It is not impossible for a person who has never heard of Jesus nevertheless to have some level of awareness of God, even if only through the reality of creation, and thus to seek God with a sincere heart. Although not fully Christian, this is indeed authentic faith.

        >> 2. We also cannot know what happens in that moment between loss of consciousness and actual death. Many of the people who have had some sort of “out of body” experience report walking some passage toward a glorious beyond, then being greeted by either somebody familiar or a great light similar to the manner in which Jesus appeared to Saul, inspiring Saul’s conversion, in Acts. It is entirely possible that some people who don’t know Jesus in this life embrace him at the moment of death, and thus attain salvation.

        Thus, although there is no doubt that salvation comes only through the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, we cannot exclude the possibility that some people who were not Christians during their lives on this planet nevertheless enter into Heaven.

        You wrote: I am infuriated by this fact, because it is how the Catholic Church, at least in places where she used to be strongest and prosperous, have become desolate ruins, or on their way to such a state. The Church of Jesus Christ, His Bride with whom He is united in mystical marriage, His Mystical Body, deserves better!…

        Yes, and rightfully so. But so am I. Thus, you are “preaching to the choir”* here.

        And this is precisely why I habitually drive to a Benedictine abbey two towns away to experience good liturgy and good preaching whenever I am able. There are perhaps a couple dozen parishes closer to my home with masses at more convenient times, but one’s soul needs real food rather than pap!

        You wrote: People left the Church because of bad catechism. Because of naivete on the part of the bishops- they even admitted it, at least on the issue of the recent draft of Canon Law- this naivete is how perverts and predators came into the Church, destroying from within, espousing soft-headed, nice-sounding platitudes and calling it “catechism” and the many, many careerists who prospered because of it. People left because they became intellectually unsatisfied with what the Church offered them, and insulted by the notion that it’s none of their business to learn about their own faith, or to be unable to suggest to Father that HE’S WRONG on an important issue due to intimidation.

        It’s true that grossly deficient catechesis is part of the problem, but it is far from the whole problem. There are two eggregious errors here.

        >> 1. I have seen many catechetical programs that stressed works of charity, neglecting both doctrine and spiritual formation. The result was basically Humanism rather than Christianity.

        >> 2. But I also have experienced catechietical programs that stressed indoctrination and completely neglected spiritual formation and mission. The result was “lip service” — people who said all the right words but did not live them out.

        Backing up a step, the true essence of Christian faith is a relationship with our Lord, with a God to whom we relate intimately as “Abba” (“Daddy”), and thus with one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. This life expresses itself in (1) prayer, both individual and communal, (2) study to learn more about God, (2) fellowship to grow together as a community of faith and to support and sustain one another on this pilgrimmage, and (4) mission to bring the gospel to those who have not heard it (evangelism). A proper formation program must incorporate all of these elements to form true disciples of our Lord.

        But having said that, the situation actually was far worse before the Second Vatican Council. Yes, there were some gross misfires in the catechisms that emerged immediately after the council, but those catechisms reflect the inadequate spiritual formation of the people who wrote them and the fact that those catechisms gained traction reflects the inadequate understanding of the people who adopted them! Grossly inadequate spiritual formation, indeed, and very widespread!

        Being realistic, we are not going to solve this problem overnight. First, we need pastors who have decent spiritual formation — and this is very uneven across the United States. Some dioceses have a preponderance of clergy who “get it” while other dioceses have a preponderance of clergy who don’t. Clergy who “get it” typically will hire “directors of religious education” (DRE’s) who “get it” and will ensure that those who teach in their formation programs are properly trained and provided with solid catechetical materials. Pastors who are clueless, OTOH, typically leave the selection of catechetical materials to others — either their DRE’s or a diocesan coordinator — who typically is just as clueless as they, with the consequence that bad catechesis propagates to the next generation.

        And when a diocese does have clergy who really do “get it” and thus who hire competent DRE’s, it’s not always a cushy road. Rather, there are invariably “traditionalists” schooled in the “old way” who resist the change, adamantly insisting that their children must learn doctrine above all else and that the other components of spiritual formation are not so important. But such resistance usually diminishes in two or three generations.

        Norm.

        * – The expression “preaching to the choir” comes from the Evangelical tradition, where the choir — the members of which are presumed already to believers — typically sits in an elevated area behind the pulpit facing the congregation, presumed to consist mostly of non-believers. The implication is that the pastor is preaching to those who agree with him, having turned his back on those who really need to hear the gospel.

      • Ioannes says:

        Norm,

        Know that I have no ill will against you or most people on this blog- it’s just that there is an itch that I cannot reach and somehow almost everyone is saying that there’s nothing wrong. But anyway, I’ve been listening to a discussions about the Second Vatican Council that I would like to share with you:

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: Know that I have no ill will against you or most people on this blog- it’s just that there is an itch that I cannot reach and somehow almost everyone is saying that there’s nothing wrong.

        I don’t know anybody who is saying that there’s nothing wrong. The issue is what to do about the problem.

        >> Some problems solve themselves in due course.

        >> Some problems require only minor course corrections.

        >> Some problems require radical changes in direction.

        >> And some problems have no solution at all.

        Think of what happens if a space shuttle’s heat shield is struck by orbital debris in flight, causing damage that causes doubt as to the safety of reentry. The astronauts onboard could do a space walk, but they don’t have materials to repair the heat shield. The only option is a rescue mission, which requires workers on the ground to assemble another shuttle, prepare it for launch, and get it off the ground, with no assurance that weather will cooperate. If you are onboard the damaged shuttle, it might feel like nothing is happening during the several days that workers at Cape Canaveral are quietly getting a shuttle together and preparing it for launch. It’s only when the rescue shuttle shows docks, a week or so later, that you become aware that something really was happening.

        You wrote: But anyway, I’ve been listening to a discussions about the Second Vatican Council that I would like to share with you:

        This video is quite interesting, but more than a little naive on some points.

        >> 1. Yes, there are many compromises — sometimes even bordering on contradictions — in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and we see this even in the very first document, the constitution Sacrosanctum concillium on divine worship. Here, the frequentl line of indigenous Americans in old Westerns comes to mind: “White man speak with forked tongue.” There was a constant tension throughout the council between bishops who recognized a need for major reforms in practice and others who were concerned that the proposed reforms were in the wrong direction. The typical compromise was an assertion that the existing practice should remain normative, but that a different practice could be admitted. By way of example, Sacrosanctum concillium says that Latin should remain the liturgical language of the Roman Rite, but that the vernacular could be used more extensively in “parts pertaining to the people” (which is the whole liturgy) where it might be of advantage. Likewise, the dogma of concommitance remaining entact, communion may be distributed under both forms in certain instances. And likewise, the pope organ is to remain the principal instrument of worship music in the Roman Rite, but other instruments can be admitted if they can be played in a manner suitable for worship. But the intent of these compromises was to admit limited trial of the proposed reforms and to latitude to go further if they worked well or to backtrack if they did not, under the clear further direction of the magisterium. Most of the trials in the late 1960’s went very well, and the magisterium proceeded to fuller implementation.

        >> 2. With respect to the issue of religious freedom, one has to consider the hipocrisy in demanding that a predominantly Catholic nation should favor the Catholic Church and suppress other expressions of faith, then decrying suppression of Christians by predominantly non-Christian states. One must remember that governments that persecute Catholics and that seek to suppress the Catholic Church are upholding what they believe to be infallible truth taught by their state religions (Atheism in the case of Communist states and Islam in the case of Islamist states). The traditional notion of a Catholic state clearly evolved from a myopic view of the world from an overwhelmingly Catholic region thereof. During the council, when bishops from countries where Catholics faced oppression and persecution got to speak their piece, there’s no doubt that reality set in and the benefit of the American innovation of religious neutrality of government became apparent. And in an case, this was never a matter of infallible doctrine, and thus was subject to reform.

        That said, there is another aspect of this situation — and it is a matter about which even traditionalits display much confusion. The Catholic Church has always maintained that there are two distinct bodies of doctrine — moral doctrine, which is deduced from the order of the universe (that is, creation) by reason alone and thus universally binding on all humanity (also called “Natural Law” in philosophy), and theolgical doctrine, derived from divine revelation (scripture and tradition) which does not bind those who do not share our religious beliefs. The doctrine of religious freedom clearly means that we cannot impose our religious beliefs on others by voting for laws based on our religious beliefs — that is, theological doctrine — but we also have a solemn duty, as citizens, to uphold the moral order of society. But people who fail to understand this distinction between moral doctrine and theological doctrine often fail to do so out of the misconception that the church’s position is religious rather than moral. We see this in the issues that confront modern society: abortion, contraception, euthenasia, homosexual relationships, divorce, etc.

        >> 3. The participants in the video are correct when they say that phrases such as “we hearby define…” do not appear in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, but the council gave clear indictation of the nature of each document by the manner in which it categorized them. In this regard, many traditionalists overlook the fact that, in reconvening the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI explicitly asked the council to define the theology of the church (ecclesiology) and divine revelation more precisely. The result of this request was two statements that the council classified as “dogmatic constitutions” — Lumen gentium on the church and Dei verbum on divine revelation. The classification of these documents as “dogmatic constitutions” indicates the clear intent of the council to define doctrine, or to clarify the definition of doctrine, therein, and thus means that both of these documents are intrinsically infallible in spite of protests to the contrary from certain traditionalists.

        >> 4. There is also a clear distinction in the concilliar documents between the status of baptized Christians and adherents to non-Christian religion and, in the same manner, between non-Catholic “churches” and “ecclesial communities” of Christian faith and bodies of non-Christian religions. The speakers in this video clearly muddy these waters. This distinction has major ramifications that even extend to the manner in which we receive people who come to us from other religious bodies. The current norms state that those who are already baptized as Christians are to have a period of formation and discernment tailored to their individual situations, and then be typically be received at a normal parish mass in a manner that is basically low key and free of triumphalism, while those who are not yet baptized, properly called converts, ordinarily complete the entire Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) leading to baptism, confirmation, and admission to communion at the Easter Vigil — the most triumphal of all liturgical celebrations. The contrast here is about as extreme as it gets!

        >> 5. There is nothing in the concilliar documents that in any way changes the status of non-Catholic Christians with respect to validity of sacramental orders or manner of reception, nor is there anything that would admit any compromise in the Petrine office of unity. Rather, to the contrary, Lumen gentium thoroughly affirms the place of the papal office as the center of communion and thus makes it clear that this office must survive all reunifications with other Christian bodies. Indeed, we see this doctrinal position borne out in the present process of formation of ordinariates for parishes coming into the full communion of the Catholic Church from the Anglican Communion and various “continuing Anglican” bodies.

        That said, the speakers on the video are quite correct when they state that neither the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, popularly called the Mormon Church, nor the Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian bodies. Both have departed from essential truths of Christian faith, and thus do not intend Christian baptism when they baptize.

        Norm.

      • Ioannes says:

        Norm,

        I know everyone in my parish and the neighboring parishes seem to think nothing is wrong. Of course no one listens to a Debbie Downer, do they? Everyone listens to Perky Pat and his/her praise worship band.

        Before talking about what to do/not to do with the problems, we must consider if:

        1. There are problems, but don’t seem to exist.
        2. There are no problems nor do they seem to exist.
        3. There are problems and appear to exists.
        4. There are no problems, but they appear to exist.

        Which one appears to be the case in general? Which one seems to be most accurate? Which one is the popular attitude among the laity? Which one is the attitude among the clergy, especially in the Roman Curia?

        ———
        The problem with the issues you addressed, particularly with one regarding religious freedom, is the underlying theme of relativism that I sense- I don’t like the twisting of what Pope Benedict meant by relativism and how relativism is meant by some other people of dubious authority and orthodoxy;

        Demanding that the Catholic Faith be upheld as the True Faith by the State, and suppressing all the other faiths, while decrying the persecution of Catholics endured in other lands do NOT strike me as hypocritical- because it would only be hypocritical if it is simultaneously true that there is no God, Allah is the only God, Buddhism is the best path, and that the Catholic Faith is the True Faith- It SMACKS of relativism- that is, there is no absolute standard by which one measures anything, that one thing can only be measured based on any other thing. Hence the Catholic faith is only relatively true, compared to, say, Scientology and Heaven’s Gate. And so, Jesus Christ isn’t the Way. He isn’t the Truth. Nor is He the Life. He was just some “great moral teacher.”

        One Religion must be true, and that necessitates all others being false, regardless of the incidental agreements one can find in each of the competing religions against Christendom. Compromised truth is partial-truth, which is not completely true at all. Catholicism deserves better than partial truth and confusion, unless it does not have the fullness of the truth. Maybe many people saw that Catholicism does not have the fullness of the truth, and that is why they left?

        Or else we end up with a “Can’t we get along” quasi-syncretism. It CONFUSES PEOPLE, and it gets harder to explain anything to anyone who already squeezed the toothpaste out of the tube and thinks anyone who thinks that absolute, objective truth exists is just an old-fashioned, member of an anachronistic sub-culture. (Which is what many Atheists think religious people are who have moral standards they follow, like chastity.)

        See, this false ecumenism I sometimes read about, especially with Muslims and atheists… It’s like me pretending that you don’t have to be Catholic to be saved, which is a grave error! If we can’t even believe in our own religion out of some attempt “to labor towards unity” implies that Catholicism ISN’T the fulness of truth, nor is it the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” Church that Our Lord established and we declare every Sunday in the Nicene Creed.

        Meanwhile, the Atheists and the Muslims play a cynical game, speaking pleasantly and inoffensively while doing what basically is the work of the Antichrist. When our good Pope Benedict spoke rightly against Islam, he was forced to apologize and humiliate himself in Turkey. And Muslims still bombed churches and murdered nuns and clergy. They do so with or without any criticism leveled against them. What has been the Catholic response? Either cowardice or confusion. While praying for and blessing those people who murdered Christians seems to be the Christian and charitable thing to do, I suspect people could have done more but chose not to.

        I don’t know about you, but I am a firm believer that Catholicism is destined to dominate the world in preparation for the arrival of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Emperor of All Creation. Jesus is not my buddy, not my equal. He is my Lord. The conversion of the whole world is the meaning behind the Great Commission. All other religions are false and must be combated and suppressed whenever possible. Those clergy who state that Jesus Christ is equal to some other false god are not trustworthy, and we can see as in the case of Katherine Jefferts-Schori what the Catholic clergy will look like once “diversity saves”- just to go back to the original intention of this blog post.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: I know everyone in my parish and the neighboring parishes seem to think nothing is wrong. Of course no one listens to a Debbie Downer, do they? Everyone listens to Perky Pat and his/her praise worship band.

        Again, I don’t know of anybody who thinks that nothing is wrong. Even the acknowledgement that one gets little from the homily at mass is an acknowledgement of major pastoral deficiency. Unfortunately, we, the laity, do not have the capacity to fix such problems. All one can do is pray for the pastor to leave sooner rather than later and for the new pastor to be better. And where the local diocese sends all of its seminarians to the same deficient seminary to be formed by the same clueless faculty, that’s not likely to happen.

        We are blessed with several outstanding national seminaries that are producing very competent, conscientious, caring clergy who minister very effectively and who preach the gospel very well. When one visits parishes in the dioceses that use those seminaries, one has a very different experience than in the dioceses that don’t.

        You wrote: Demanding that the Catholic Faith be upheld as the True Faith by the State, and suppressing all the other faiths, while decrying the persecution of Catholics endured in other lands do NOT strike me as hypocritical- because it would only be hypocritical if it is simultaneously true that there is no God, Allah is the only God, Buddhism is the best path, and that the Catholic Faith is the True Faith- It SMACKS of relativism- that is, there is no absolute standard by which one measures anything, that one thing can only be measured based on any other thing. Hence the Catholic faith is only relatively true, compared to, say, Scientology and Heaven’s Gate. And so, Jesus Christ isn’t the Way. He isn’t the Truth. Nor is He the Life. He was just some “great moral teacher.”

        No, I don’t see that at all. Nobody is denying the absolute truth of Christian faith, lived out in its fullness in the Catholic Church. But a government that demands assent thereto by all of its subjects is no different moral ground than a Communist government that demands assent to Atheism or a Taliban that demands assent to its interpetation of Islam. All fail to respect the fundamental right to freedom of belief with which our God endows each of us. Most people will gravitate toward the truth if we present it clearly, without need for coercion — and unfortunately, presenting the truth clearly is precisely what many of our clergy fail to do. There’s also the reality consent coerced under threat of government oppression is not freely given, and thus is not true consent. In the case of marriage, this amount of coercion would be sufficient to declare a marriage null and void. What does that say about baptism?

        You wrote: One Religion must be true, and that necessitates all others being false, regardless of the incidental agreements one can find in each of the competing religions against Christendom. Compromised truth is partial-truth, which is not completely true at all. Catholicism deserves better than partial truth and confusion, unless it does not have the fullness of the truth.

        Yes, this is true. However, the truth does not need government to coerce people into believing it. Rather, it just needs believers to present it clearly — above all, by living by it.

        You wrote: Maybe many people saw that Catholicism does not have the fullness of the truth, and that is why they left?

        No, you can’t see what isn’t true. But the other reality is that many people are not hearing the truth, in all its fullness, in the homilies in their local parishes because their pastors fail to present it clearly. And this is the fundamental problem that we need our bishops to solve, since we cannot solve it ourselves.

        You wrote: See, this false ecumenism I sometimes read about, especially with Muslims and atheists…

        This is a gross misconception. There is NO ECUMENISM WHATSOEVER WITH NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS. Rather, there can only be some level of interfaith cooperation on matters of mutual concern. Note how the Second Vatican Council defined the term “ecumenical” in the decree Unitatis redintegratio on ecumenism (boldface added).

        But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called “ecumenical.” Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God’s Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.

        I rather get the sense here that, in your thinking, you are equating non-Catholic Christians with those who are not Christian — which is an utter fallacy. Even Christian denominations that do not posess the apostolic succession, and thus do not have valid sacramental orders or a valid eucharist, validly celebrate two sacraments — baptism and marriage. In baptism, their members receive God’s saving grace. And since they do not have access to the sacramental absolution, they can obtain forgiveness of mortal sin by a perfect act of contrition. Thus, unlike those who are not Christians, they do not lack the essential means of salvation even though they do not have access to the fullness of sacramental grace. And what of those who belong to the churches of the Orthodox Communion, the ancient oriental churches, or the churches of the Union of Scranton, all of which have preserved the apostolic succession and thus validly celebrate all seven sacraments according to their own liturgical traditions? They presently lack only full communion with the See of Peter — and it is certainly valid for them to seek to heal the respective schisms rather than to break from their present bodies to come into the full communion of the Catholic Church individually!

        You wrote: I don’t know about you, but I am a firm believer that Catholicism is destined to dominate the world in preparation for the arrival of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Emperor of All Creation. Jesus is not my buddy, not my equal. He is my Lord. The conversion of the whole world is the meaning behind the Great Commission.

        Yes, and the place to start is to get our own house in order. We need clergy who preach the gospel faithfully and inspire us all to live it, above all by their own example.

        You wrote: All other religions are false and must be combated and suppressed whenever possible.

        The best way to combat lies is to speak the truth. Don’t worry about Mohammed, or Buddah, or any of the other founders of non-Chrisian religion. When one is preaching about them, one is NOT preaching about Jesus!

        You wrote: Those clergy who state that Jesus Christ is equal to some other false god are not trustworthy…

        That would constitute heresy.

        To be fair, I have not heard that from any Catholic clergy. But if you do hear a Catholic cleric make such statements, by all means refer the matter to (1) his bishop or religious superior and (2) the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

        Norm.

    • William Tighe says:

      A nice red herring you’ve trailed across this thread.

  5. EPMS says:

    And Ioannes–Your attitude: “We are God’s chosen few/All others will be damned/There is no place in heaven for you/We can’t have heaven crammed.” is guaranteed to confirm the average person’s suspicion that religion is nothing but a cloak for malice and resentment.

    • Ioannes says:

      No, I want everyone in Heaven. God wants everyone in Heaven. But the Church Fathers do declare that there are more people going to Hell than Heaven because it is easier to go to Hell than to Heaven. It is simply easier to fall from grace than to carry the cross daily. Or are any of you such holy and saintly and perfect and pure people that you absolutely know you’re going to heaven the moment the Lord takes you at any moment?

      I would likely be one of the damned, but I have hope in the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, that I can be saved by God’s mercy. Can others be saved by God’s Mercy? Sure. But then why bother with the Catholic Church if it’s certain NO ONE goes to Hell out of “God’s Mercy”? What are we, Muslims? To believe that Hell is temporary? That no one goes there? That it doesn’t exist?

      Now if I were a Calvinist heretic, it becomes a different story. God made some people to go to Heaven, “The Elect,” and others were made to go to Hell? This is blasphemy, and people who preach such a thing ought to be quickly given the opportunity to ask his Maker of His Judgement on the matter.

  6. Richard M says:

    Most likely, it’s a combination of (2) and (1).

  7. Ioannes says:

    I could be wrong about Katherine Jefferts-Schori, since my uncharitable, angry words about her and what she teaches makes me a “Catholic not in good standing.” according to the standards established by the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

    I will let Michael Voris explain this sudden change of heart.

    /sarcasm

    • EPMS says:

      Ioannes: It doesn’t really matter what you are angry about; you must have noticed that people on various blogs treat you as the Incredible Hulk of the internet. Do you think about where this anger comes from, and if it’s a good place?

      • Ioannes says:

        Incredible Hulk? More like the Incredulous Hulk…

        ….regarding the Polyanna approach of the “modern” “post-conciliar” Church, that is.

        This anger comes from thirst and hunger for righteousness. It’s a good thing. Are you saying that freaking out and flipping tables and making trouble isn’t a viable solution to a problem? Then I wonder why Our Lord did that at the Temple? Are you saying that He was just acting? He was just being a troll to the Temple authorities?

        Jesus Christ got angry. And so did many saints. But it is not blind anger, which is rage influenced by Satan to be indiscriminate and senseless and brutally destructive- Divine fury is justified, as much as war and violence can be justified. It is controlled and tempered by meekness. (which isn’t what you think “meekness” means)

        If you suggest that my anger and fury is diabolical in nature, then why am I still typing these words when I should have gone on a killing spree? I don’t need a gun to do that, nor a weapon of any sort! The Lord knows these times are such that even innocent children die at the hands of evil men, people constantly described as “He was such a nice, smart, quiet boy.” or even learned men with titles like “Doctor”- If anything, I am more honest than these people who have no hope or love of God.

        If I had no hope, I would not be angry. I would have resigned to being dead inside, only pretending that the wafer and the wine had any meaning or significance. A sort of pious agnosticism, doing practices done out of habit rather than hope, or faith. It would be more comfortable to pay lip service- what happens on a Sunday is easy enough to pretend to believe in.

        If I didn’t have any reason to be angry and I find nothing but blind satisfaction in my religion, bereft of any critical thought, I might as well be one of those blind men who will fall into the pit the Lord spoke about. And that’s exactly what many fall into, and why they are disillusioned. They become “cultural Catholics” who are only Catholics because they belong to some ethnic group that long forgot what it meant to be Catholics.

        The complacency towards ignorance of the faith is an insult to those who love God enough to ask “Why” and to assert that one thing is -true- and another is -false- and to be outraged when truths are distorted into falsehoods, and lies are praised and glorified as true. This is why I am angered. I am especially angered when clergy, who ought to be reliable teachers, lead people astray. I look up to the clergy- am I supposed to settle for “Well, they’re only human-” nonsense!? these men are supernaturally imbued with the Spirit of God, and their precious hands are consecrated for offering the most Holy Mass. I refuse to believe whatever namby-pamby nonsense that comes out of Fr./Bishop Pleasant of the Church of Nice and his fanclub.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s