Back in January 2006, I wrote a post titled “Did I read the same encyclical as The New York Times?”, about the Grey Lady’s faintly funny and quite clueless reaction to Benedict XVI’s Deus Caritas Est (“God Is Love”), which had been released on Christmas Day 2005. Of course, I didn’t expect anything different. It was par for the course. After all, secular newspapers cannot be expected to be deeply familiar with the many works written over many decades by Ratzinger/Benedict.
But Catholics should be, right? At the very least, Catholics should read and interact with major papal texts with a moderate amount of knowledge and acumen. However, as Cardinal Cupich demonstrates in his latest column, titled “A church called to love perfectly”, even prelates misunderstand (or misrepresent) texts in ways that are puzzling, annoying, or worse.
There are two points to consider here. The first is Cardinal Cupich’s assertion, at the start, that there are “many points of convergence between the late Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis is their emphasis on the power of grace, which is God’s love for his people. From different perspectives, both popes insist that this love is totally unconditional, mysterious, transformative and gratuitous.” Fair enough. I don’t disagree.
The problem comes with the argument presented in the next few paragraphs. It rests on Francis’s warning against trying to, as Cupich puts it, “domesticate the mystery of God’s grace or even the mystery of our lives by pretending to have all the answers.” God is, as Francis has famously remarks, “full of surprises.” We don’t determine when and how we encounter God. Those who think they know everything or have answers for every question are, in essence, trying to take God’s place.
Again, that’s fine as far as it goes. But Cupich then states: “So a pastoral approach that preemptively excludes someone from the life of the church and her ministry is a serious matter and must be challenged.”
How, it must be asked, does that follow? The claim is so big and vague that it’s almost pointless. Except, sadly, the point is fairly clear. As Phil Lawler writes, this surely is first and foremost about those holding to and living out beliefs about sex(uality) that are contrary to clear Church teaching. Why? Because that’s what Cupich and Co. (including Cardinal McElroy in recent writings and statements) have been pushing for years. For example, back in 2015, during the Synod on the Family, it was reported “Cupich told reporters in Rome he favors pathways to offer Holy Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics. He said the church must respect the decisions those Catholics make about their spiritual lives and he believes the same is true for gay Catholics in relationships.” And so forth and so.
Cupich’s argument, in his column, is apparently as follows: since God is mysterious and is active in everyone’s life, it’s wrong for the Church to set limits on what anybody can do or be within the Church. And he attempts to employ some quotes from Benedict’s first encyclical in service of this stance. Cupich first quotes from a section (9) in Deus Caritas Est about the prophets and God’s enduring love for His people. Then he writes:
Notice that God forgives before anything else and before what justice would demand. Then, Benedict seems to double down on this and writes something quite astonishing to the point that he was criticized by some theologians at the time: “God’s passionate love for his people … a forgiving love … is so great that it turns God against himself, his love against his justice.”
Yes, it’s a striking quote, but it describes something that I, even as a young Evangelical Protestant, prior to becoming Catholic, understood to some significant degree: God had every reason and right to destroy sinful humanity, and could have done so in the name of true justice—but He instead demonstrated His love by offering forgiveness, redemption, and salvation. This should get our attention, without doubt, but it’s not some sort of doctrinal breakthrough of recent vintage, precisely because it is at the core of the Gospel and is the inner dynamic of the Incarnation itself! It is, in fact, exactly what the Apostle Paul describes in various places, such as in his epistle to the Romans:
While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man–though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. (Rom 5:6-8; cf Eph 2)
This is Soteriology 101 (a class I’ve taught several times, so I’m not saying it for effect). But, again, Cupich suddenly takes this somewhere else, apparently hoping his readers won’t notice how badly he confuses and conflates specifics that demand proper distinctions:
Unfortunately, some in the church struggle to understand the insights of these magisterial teachings. There are voices that insist the church must exclude sinners from fuller participation in the life of the church until they have reformed, out of respect for God’s justice. Yet, Pope Benedict would remind them that God’s love is so great and mysterious that it turns God against himself and turns his love against his justice.
Translation: those who think repentance is an essential part of participation—receiving Holy Communion and other sacraments, I suspect—are legalistic bullies. Don’t they understand that Benedict said God isn’t interested in justice? That’s bad enough (as I’ll show in a moment), but Cupich further adds:
And Pope Francis would warn them against domesticating the mystery of the grace of God by pretending to limit it by their cold and harsh logic. For treating God’s grace, no matter the moment or circumstance it may come, as if it were a reward for what we have done, robs it of any sense of mystery.
This is notable for both its sloppiness and doctrinal sophistry.
Here, to sum up the first point, is the problem. Francis, in the quotes above, focuses on the Mystery of God, warning against presuming that we can know or grasp who God is. In the words of St. Augustine: “If you understood Him, it would not be God.” But that does not mean (nor does Francis say it means) that we cannot and do not really know truths about God that have been given to us by Christ and His Church. Quite the contrary.
And while the New Testament is definitive in this regard because of the person and work of Jesus Christ, the same basic truth can be seen even in the Pentateuch: God is completely Other—“I AM who I AM” (Exodus 3:14; see CCC 206)—and yet He not only reveals something of Himself, He gives detailed and all-encompassing Commandments. God is not capricious; He doesn’t give a commandment against adultery or sodomy and then, for some people in some places, say that adultery and sodomy are fine. Or can be fine in some cases, because of complexities and difficulties. As Benedict emphasized so often, reason and logos are of God.
Meanwhile, Benedict, in his first encyclical, was intent on helping readers better understand the centrality of God’s love—that God is love (1 Jn 4:8); that He is not a violent deity driven by emotions and will for power (in some ways, his encyclical sets the stage for his widely misrepresented Regensburg Address). He showed that the Triune God is personal in His perfect love, offering forgiveness even when justice demands condemnation. And he points out that justice and love are reconciled in the mystery of the Cross (10).
Benedict in no way says that because God offers us His saving love there are no demands or criteria involved in accepting and living that love. Quite the contrary.
And that brings us to the second point: Ratzinger/Benedict constantly, in many ways and places, emphasized the need for repentance and Confession—and, in fact, lamented how often these vital actions are downplayed or even ignored.
In The Divine Project, a collection of six lectures given in 1985, Cardinal Ratzinger stated: “Too many people these days lack the courage to profess the prophetic message ‘Repent!’ in all its seriousness; that is, the part that comes before the words ‘believe in the Gospel.’ … [A]ll too often, the way we preach the Christian message today sounds like a recording of a symphony where the opening bars and the first major them have been cut out, laving the whole symphony amputated, it’s inner progressive unintelligible.” And, a bit later, he observes that sin “has become one of those things that are no longer spoken about in our age. We do our best to to avoid it in our preaching and teaching.” (pp 89, 90).
Then, in his 2007 Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis, on the Eucharist, Benedict wrote the following, worth quoting at length for reasons that will be apparent:
The Synod Fathers rightly stated that a love for the Eucharist leads to a growing appreciation of the sacrament of Reconciliation. Given the connection between these sacraments, an authentic catechesis on the meaning of the Eucharist must include the call to pursue the path of penance (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29). We know that the faithful are surrounded by a culture that tends to eliminate the sense of sin and to promote a superficial approach that overlooks the need to be in a state of grace in order to approach sacramental communion worthily. The loss of a consciousness of sin always entails a certain superficiality in the understanding of God’s love. Bringing out the elements within the rite of Mass that express consciousness of personal sin and, at the same time, of God’s mercy, can prove most helpful to the faithful. Furthermore, the relationship between the Eucharist and the sacrament of Reconciliation reminds us that sin is never a purely individual affair; it always damages the ecclesial communion that we have entered through Baptism. For this reason, Reconciliation, as the Fathers of the Church would say, is laboriosus quidam baptismus; they thus emphasized that the outcome of the process of conversion is also the restoration of full ecclesial communion, expressed in a return to the Eucharist. (par 20)
The loss of a consciousness of sin always entails a certain superficiality in the understanding of God’s love. That captures, in many ways, the problem with the not-so-divine project being pushed by Cardinals McElroy, Cupich, Hollerich, and others, such as Fr. James Martin, SJ.
In my experience, supposedly “rigid” and “neo-Pelagian” Catholics are not angry at homosexuals or at those committing adultery or at kids who say they are “trans”. They are frustrated with the refusal by so many bishops to call a spade a spade (or who are actively promoting falsehoods about moral truths), to stand firm against the reign of gay and the tyranny of trans, to uphold the perennial teachings of the Church rooted in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and to exhort all Catholics to repentance and the state of grace.
Rather than catering to the dominant culture of death, our leaders should stop counting the cost and instead carry the Cross, which is both very challenging and absolutely necessary for all of us. After all, the same Apostle who declared that God is love also wrote the following:
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith. (1 Jn 5:2-4)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Let’s face it, Cardinal Cupich is beyond his depth. Decorating his scribblings with Benedict XVI as he pretends to do…
Well, fine. Why not begin, then, with the understanding how the Big Lie insinuates itself into our lives? Self-deception for particulars first creates a false bubble-universe within which the specific lie then can be rationalized. Only radical self-examination can root this snake-like coiling out of one’s soul. This effort is called conversion, and presumes some sort of interior life (“interior life,” what’s that?).
Here’s what Benedict has to say about the lie within the Lie:
“(First) I have been absolutely certain that there is something wrong with the theory of the justifying force of the subjective conscience . . . Hitler may have had none (guilt feelings); nor may Himmler or Stalin. Mafia bosses may have none, but it is more likely that they have merely suppressed their awareness of the skeletons in their closets. And the aborted guilt feelings . . . Everyone needs guilt feelings.
“(And second) The loss of the ability to see one’s guilt, the falling silent of conscience in so many areas, is a more dangerous illness of the soul than guilt that is recognized as guilt (see Psalm 19:12) . . .
“To identify conscience with a superficial state of conviction is to equate it with a certainty that merely seems rational [!], a certainty woven from self-righteousness, conformism, and intellectual laziness. Conscience is degraded to a mechanism that produces excuses for one’s conduct, although in reality conscience is meant to make the subject transparent to the divine, thereby revealing man’s authentic dignity and greatness” (Values in a Time of Upheaval, 2006).
But, who am I to judge?
Thank you Mr. Olson.
Thanks, dear Carl for faithfully proclaiming what The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles taught us and what nearly 2,000 years of Catholic Christianity has faithfully witnessed, to many millions of people, all over the world.
“The loss of a consciousness of sin always entails a certain superficiality in the understanding of God’s love. That captures, in many ways, the problem with the not-so-divine project being pushed by Cardinals McElroy, Cupich, Hollerich, and others, such as Fr. James Martin, SJ.”
The New Testament clearly instructs: God is love. 1 John 4:8–9: “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed His love among us: He sent His one and only Son into the world that we might live through Him.”
It is necessary to grasp that God can perfectly love & hate a person at the same time. God can love them as someone He created & can redeem; as well as hate them (without malice) for unbelief & sinful lifestyle. We, as imperfect human beings, cannot reach this height; thus, we must remind ourselves: “Love the sinner; hate the sin.”
How can that work? We hate sin as it rebels against God’s instructions, by refusing to participate in it, and by condemning it as contrary to God’s nature. Sin must be hated, not excused or taken lightly. We love sinners by showing them respect (1 Peter 2:17), praying for them (1 Timothy 2:1), and witnessing Christ to them. In genuine love, we prayerfully treat someone with respect and kindness even whilst making perfectly plain our disapproval of his or her lifestyle or sinful choices.
It’s NOT loving to encourage a person to remain yoked to sin. It’s NOT hateful to respectfully inform her or him of their offense before God. In fact, it is Christian sacrificial love to do this, for sin leads to eternal death (James 1:15). We can love sinners by telling them the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). We hate the sin by refusing to condone, ignore, or excuse it. We love the sinner by deeply caring for their eternal soul.
Wayward Catholic hierarchs need to meditate on 1 John 3:8: “Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.”
Christ is the Head of the Church, which thus also exists to destroy the works of the devil. The Church will obviate its divine charter if it incorporates the works of the devil by a clericalist fiat.
Let every genuine Catholic join in prayer for God to cleanse the Pope, the Curia, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, deacons, brothers, sisters, and lay leaders of every trace of their current trivializing of sin.
Always in the grace & mercy of Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
There is nothing “catholic” about this yellow journalism… Just as another arm of Christian Nationalism and Fox Faux News…
Please show how my editorial is not Catholic. Use actual arguments. Avoid slander and childish insults. Be an adult. Can you do it?
Why the insult, Carl?
Encouraging someone who is a “Dr.” to use actual arguments and to be an adult is not an insult. It’s good advice.
Dear Dr. Procaccino:
You mention ” yellow journalism” and yet, a truthful analysis is offered, which firm Catholics overwhelmingly concur with. The writer needs no defence from me, however your remarks appear out of place on this article.
With respect,
Brian Young
Hmmm, cute but no. Nothing written here is anywhere near yellow journalism. Nice try with the “Christian nationalism”, “Fox news” attempted insult. But (big Yaawn), no, it didn’t work.
We are collectively indebted as Catholics to those like Carl Olson who have the moral courage to speak out against obfuscations (and also lies) of Church teaching -most especially when done by those whose very ministry is to teach the Truth and lead Christ’s Church.
In gratitude to Carl and others like him I am offering my Mass and Holy Communion this morning for their intention.
Those who would dilute the seriousness of sin reject the teaching of God through His commandments and presume on the love of God and His forgiveness. I was taught that God hates the sin but loves the sinner. We read in the account of the woman caught in adultery that Jesus refused to condemn her, but He sent her on her way with the admonition to “go and sin no more.” So, presuming on God’s love of the sinner without repentance of the sin and a firm resolve to avoid the sin in the future is just piling on another sin.
Guaranteed a woman facing a stoning was repentant. She received forgiveness and told to avoid sin. We are called to meet sinners where they are just as Jesus did. And, as Jesus did we bring these brothers out of the muck and mire they find themselves in out into the Light, we don’t stay there with them. Well done Dr Olson.
I exhort you to be that watchman on the tower!!! Ezekiel 33:7. “ So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.
Cupich and company, true to the lead of Pope Francis, McElroy, Hollerich, like others previous to Francis’ pontificate, want to have their cake and eat it too. Why many find maddening the duplicity of upholding perennial doctrine while ‘seeking pathways’ to abrogate those commandments.
Francis’ god of surprises suited the Iscariot well, that one can preach the Gospel, perform miracles of healing, cast out demons, and dip his hand into the bursar’s moneybag [perhaps for wine and a fling with the ladies at the local cantina], disbelieve Christ on his flesh and blood, show sign of great affection [kisses] and nevertheless plan ahead for Our Lord’s arrest.
Olson addresses Ratzinger’s The Divine Project Ratzinger identifying the moral diffidence. As experienced the unwillingness to discuss sin with parishioners particularly from the pulpit.
What that comes down to is a false sense of charitable sensitivity, a presumption of compassion that somehow transcends the words of Christ. In effect the arrogance that one can do better. Judas’ betrayal was along those lines of presumptive thought. Surely he thought Our Lord would be chastised, dismissed, and forgotten. That he would now await a real messiah. One with lots of surprises. We’ve had enough of scurrilous surprises. Abandon superficiality and take up the Cross (Olson).
We are sinners. We should acknowledge our sin when we can identify it. We should ask God for forgiveness. The debate is to define sin . When rooted in the gospel of Jesus that can be broadly accepted. When rooted in tradition from the middle ages that becomes problematic.
It’s not complex Mike. Simple. Disobey Christ’s commandments and you sin. We can talk all day about mitigation theory, lack of full knowledge and so forth as treated in the Catechism. If you don’t have viable evidence the Church must stand by what’s manifest in your behavior. Insofar as your relationship with God, it’s entirely up to you to obey or disobey.
We cannot omit love of God, the infinite good that is God who sets the conditions for moral behavior and goodness. If we find difficulty in compliance, that’s not indicative of further need for external research, rather indication of our need to interiorly examine our motivation, research our personal difficulty, and ultimately, hopefully humble ourselves before the almighty.
What? All of it is rooted in God.the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures and God the Holy Spirit in every age, ancient, Middle, contemporary….and His Teaching of the Truth in every age is the same today, yesterday and forever until Christ Returns….there is no debate on defining sib, the Holy Trinity has done this and it hasn’t and cannot change – it is eternal, timely, immutable….blessings, padre
Additionally Mike God is ultimately judge of the soul. Even there he didn’t create us to make salvation a complex, difficult reality to understand. It’s up to us to honestly respond to his revelation on what is good, and what is unacceptable or evil.
Why? God doesn’t lie. Jesus promised Sacred Tradition to His Church, and this is not “problematic.” There are always derivative understandings from first principles of natural law to be clarified in time and place that remain faithful to Our Lord’s intent. The Gospels don’t contain all that Jesus said, but it is doubtful than He ever mentioned the word abortion. It probably wasn’t necessary. Yet the early Christians made it clear that opposition to this barbarity was a natural part of their understanding of life ethics, and there is nothing about the “middle ages” or any other time or place that makes truth a cultural artifact.
If the Bishops who are working on Eucharistic Revival would consider bringing back the altar rail we might be brought back to our knees and adore our God, thereby realizing the meaning of the words ” Lord, I am not Worthy…”.But only say the words and I shall be healed. Those words are sacramentally heard in the sacrament of Penance.
I would love the altar rail brought back….. I think you are so right about being on our knees in respect to receive our Lord. There would be a change in the appearance of respect as well….Little ones too, would see and perhaps even feel what love their parents have for the Lord, to knee in honor of receiving the grace by receiving the Lord. Not even a single part of the Eucharist would fall.. Jesus would not fall to the floor in any way shape or form. I’m in and do still receive Jesus by the tongue.
Agree totally. A showing of a deeper respect.
Why would anyone sacrifice the precious commodity of truth in order to get so-called “love” that isn’t worth anything…that isn’t real? The devil made that choice, and his agenda has always reflected the free-love logic of hell. Every time we feel pain, every time we cry, every time someone dies, we should remember that.
This reflection by Carl Olson reminds me, as in a mirror, the debate on what is called universalism. It is about whether ultimately salvation is offered to all and by inference that hell is empty. A lot cannot just accept this. It is unjust for them to live holy lives and in the end find that those who do not take their way also end up rewarded with salvation like them. Unfair. But God is indeed a God of surprises. God paid all the workers equally though they worked different hours (Matthew 20:1-16). Regarding universalism, just as there are various biblical passages that show that God separate those who get rewarded with salvation and those who get condemned to eternal punishment, it is also important to highlight biblical passages that turn these passages on its head which can seem unfair. Here’s a sampling of universalist passages: “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself” (John 12:32); “In the fullness of time, to bring in Christ all things in heaven and on earth” (Ephesians 1:10); “God our savior who wills everyone to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:3-4). There will always be people who are for universalism and its related “radical inclusivity” (associated with Cardinal Robert McElroy), and people who like to order God to limit the scope of divine love by imposing “radical exclusivity.” Carl Olson here pictures radical exclusivity.
“Carl Olson here pictures radical exclusivity.”
No, I don’t. This essay is not about the universalist debates, but about the clear teachings of Scripture and Tradition re: repentance and holiness. We are called to repent and to be perfect (Mt 5:48), precisely because those who accept and are filled with God’s divine life do indeed have the power and obligation to live as true children of God (Jn 1:12; Rom 8:2; 1 Jn 3:1). All are sinners; all are invited to be children of God. And if we accept that invitation, we are to live accordingly, working out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12). A key part of that, as Paul states, is, “by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Rom 12:1). If that is “radical exclusivity” (and it’s not, because we all are invited), you can take it up with God, not me.
A verse that demands contemplation is this, from Paul’s second letter to Timothy: “The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful–for he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim 2:11-13). God is always faithful to His covenantal, familial promises, but he does not force anything on us. If we wish to walk away and deny his, we can. But, again, there are demands; there is a reason that Christ gave a New Law (Matt 5-7), and a difficult one at that. But not impossible. Rather, transformative. Trying to run around it or avoid it, as Cupich, McElroy, and Co. do, is not only contrary to what God has taught, it is enslaving to those who deserve the full truth of the Gospel.
That you for a brilliant critique. I am very worried about us becoming a Church with no core beliefs.
I daresay that it is not possible for the Catholic Church to become a church with no beliefs. There are truths, revelation, Truths and Revelation. It is the latter which is not at risk. The former could be categorized as that which we internaize. But objectively speakingg, Truths and Revelation have already been recorded and are our heritage, then as now and forever. What we do with all of this becomes our own mission. Spoiler alert: We all have free will, and grace sufficient for our salvation.
Richard, you have permitted satan such an easy victory…..”interpreting Scripture to one’s ruin”….you do not speak about the Truth or Teachings of The Beloved but instead distract with sophistries…the Truth is the Beloved is the Radical Exclusivist, “goats, you are excluded as you are absent the Wedding Garment”… “I send My Angels to bind you in the exclusivity you have rooted yourself within and cast you out into your exclusivity of wailing and gnashing of teeth forever”… Jesus says the Priest, the Church, is to remind us of the radical exclusivity that the goats or unrepentant endanger themselves in, al as first with satan and his demons, and testifies thus,”receive the Holy Spirit, whoever refuses repentance, their sins you retain [Jn 20:23b]…blessings.
“God paid all the workers equally though they worked different hours (Matthew 20:1-16).”
Yes, but they WORKED. They didn’t make excuses about how they shouldn’t have to then hang around with their hand out.
Dear Richard C, surely Carl Olson is faithfully reflecting King Jesus Christ’s multiple warnings about the fate of those who disobey His commandments. Can you think of anything in all of existence that is more radically exclusive? Radical inclusion and radical exclusion (narrow way v. broad way; sheep v. goats; wheat v. weeds; kernels v. chaff; edible fish v. inedible; etc.) are the Divine end products of this temporary & challenging universe we find ourselves in.
Let us pray for enlightenment by The Holy Spirit of Christ of all those, otherwise good Catholics, who have been blinded by the false mercy of universalist heresy.
How then is God all-loving and merciful? Maybe because all who exclude themselves from The New Jerusalem (whose 12 vast doors are, significantly, always open) have freely selected to entrain their souls to ignore or even loathe God by willfully dismissing & flouting Christ’s commandments.
Universalist illogicality requires that God CONSCRIPT everyone, both obedient Christ lovers AND disobedient Christ ignorers & loathers, as if humans are zombie automata.
But: Basic to God’s enormous love is profound respect for each person’s free choices. All those in Heaven are willing volunteers, nary a single conscript.
Surely you don’t imagine that God-respecters are forever bundled-up with God-disrespecters in a move that negates the entire purpose of our material existence?
Dear Richard C, please think about that.
People write heavy tomes about this; and there’re many devious equivocations but none can ever circumvent what both The Old & The New Testament and 2,000 years of Church doctrine have made abundantly clear.
1 Peter 4:18 – “If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and sinners?”
Ever in Christ Jesus; love & blessings from marty
Richard C – You cite Matthew 20, the parable of the landowner who gives equal wages to laborers who worked for different periods of time in the field, as support for universalism. Here, I think you miss a key point of the parable. The parable’s comparison is not between those who live holy lives vs. those who live lives of dissolution. Rather, it is between those who live entire lives of holiness (ie, those doing the full day’s work in the parable), and those who come to live lives of holiness in the latter stages of their lives (ie, the later-starting laborers in the parable). What’s the key difference? All of the laborers eventually fulfilled the landowner’s call to work and were doing so by day’s (ie, life’s) end. In your example, those living lives of dissolution to the end never come around to answering the landowner’s call. In Jesus’s parable, a condition of receiving a full day’s wage was that one had to be doing the landowner’s work at day’s end to receive their reward. The implication is, at the time the Lord calls us, we must be in a state of grace in order to receive the reward He longs to give us. The conclusion is, this parable is not the example of universalism you believe it to be.
An interesting set of replies to a thoughtful article. Let’s all remember that we need to pray daily for our priests, bishops, & pope, as well for ourselves (that the good Lord may take the beam out of our eye). Debate is good but if we don’t like the direction that a leader is going are we praying more for them? Please let’s do so as we continue to discuss/debate important subjects. Prayer illuminates may things!! Peace of Christ to all!!
A further evil,lie and death is to say it is not love or mercy to not offer absolution to the repentant – the Holy Spirit Testifies to this evil and hypocrisy of those coming to the baptism of John without repentance and said this endangers exclusion of them even as they pretend to come to Baptism sincerely and authentically repentant; secondly, it is mercy to witness to them that “Jesus mercifully retains their sins” so that they will like the younger prodigal son come to the truth in their senses and repent, that they may be found to have the Holy Communion with the Living God they had kept lost in unrepentantness, and in unrepentance’s death be restore to repentance’s Life. Blessings.
The Holy Spirit’s encyclical through Saint John Paul, Teaches and Testifies most sublimely to the Beloved, Dives in Misericordia…blessings, Pater.
Oops…unrepentant…
A further evil,lie and death is to say it is not love or mercy to not offer absolution to the unrepentant – the Holy Spirit Testifies to this evil and hypocrisy of those coming to the baptism of John without repentance and said this endangers exclusion of them even as they pretend to come to Baptism sincerely and authentically repentant; secondly, it is mercy to witness to them that “Jesus mercifully retains their sins” so that they will like the younger prodigal son come to the truth in their senses and repent, that they may be found to have the Holy Communion with the Living God they had kept lost in unrepentantness, and in unrepentance’s death be restore to repentance’s Life. Blessings.
The Holy Spirit’s encyclical through Saint John Paul, Teaches and Testifies most sublimely to the Beloved, Dives in Misericordia…blessings, Pater.
We sadly live in a day and age where the is NO accountability, there is no responsibility and there is no concept of sin. God is seen as something like a big happy tooth fairy, dispensing favors to all,approving of all, regardless of their status of sinfulness. They need never acknowledge any sin, repent of it, or agree with the standards and teachings of the church. EVERYTHING is deemed “OK” as long as we are personally sincere. God forbid anyone’s feelings are hurt by telling them the truth. Its the biggest deception, EVER. It will not improve until priests and bishops start laying down the law in clear and unmistakable statements. Sadly, given the fact that many theologically radical ideas are now being PROMOTED by the Bishops themselves, chances of this happening is pretty slim.
A subject that needs to be wrestled and reasoned with. Our faith calls for unbroken tuning by meditating on God’s word and constant prayer. The church is awake, with people who love the Lord and rejoice in his saving grace. The article and the comments by the faithful, demonstrate Christ is alive within us.
Romans 10:9 Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
John 20:31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Some dwell in the church, yet they appear not to have the faith that Jesus asks us to bring to the alter.
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
1 Corinthians 5:13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Thanks, dear brother Brian, for the clear & unequivocal biblical instructions on the priority of faith.
We all know many who affirm: “I just believe.” – presuming their affirmation supplies them with the certainty of eternal salvation, and thus a charter to do whatever they want.
Yet, mature believers understand belief in Christ is also belief in His commands, shown by obedience to them; and sincere repentance whenever we miss the mark.
1 John 3:24 – “The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in them. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Holy Spirit whom He has given us.”
Matthew 7:21-27, makes it plain that obedience to the commands of God the Father, is affirmed and shown us by the life & teachings of King Jesus Christ, and was reminded to the Apostolic authors of The New Testament by The Holy Spirit of God.
The Trinity’s seal emphasizes these ordinances are a non-negotiable for a true Catholic and for any other authentic Christian.
Is obedience something a believer can decide for themselves, Brian? No: God has not provided that option. Off the rock of obeying Christ’s rules, so graciously given us, we will fall. Are we on our own? No: the beloved Holy Spirit reminds us of the rules.
How can our catechists communicate the security provided by obedience to our beloved Lord Jesus Christ? First, by being clear about the unshakeable 10 Commandments.
The original Semitic Ten Commandments reflected cleanness of the right hand (the first five commands) and uncleanness of the left hand (the second five commands).
This duality graphically illustrates 1. loving God; 2. loving our neighbor.
Expressed for 21st Century people –
HAND ONE, Thumb: With all my heart, mind, body and soul I will worship the one God revealed by Jesus Christ: Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
Index Finger: I will have no other god nor any idol; I will not swear oaths, for my ‘yes’ is yes and my ‘no’ is no.
Middle Finger: I will not use God’s name profanely.
Ring Finger: I will keep the Sabbath Day holy, in the way Jesus taught us.
Little Finger: I will honour my mum and dad.
HAND TWO, Thumb: I will love every person and not hurt or kill anyone, nor think evil of them, nor hate or take revenge.
Index Finger: I will maintain sexual purity and faithfulness in thought, word and deed.
Middle Finger: I will not steal; I will not rob others of their reputation.
Ring Finger: I will not tell lies, deceive, nor cheat.
Little finger: I will not covet, for God in Christ is providing for all my needs.
A resolve by our Church leaders at all levels, to get every Catholic parish, every Diocese, and all the Roman Curia back to the longstanding basics would certainly attract The Holy Spirit to help us transform the world.
This is God’s own alternative to the current backsliding, where hierarchs are disastrously invoking the rebel world spirit to renovate the Church. For goodness’ sake!
What don’t they understand about: “If you love Me; obey My commands.”
Keep safe everyone. Stay well.
Ever in the love of The Lamb; blessings from marty
Dear Dr Marty:
Blessings and appreciation for sharing your walk with the Lord. When we have found concordance with our Lord and Saviour, we seek unity with fellow believers.
In life, difference of opinion will arise, yet you defer to Christ for clarity. Underlying the efforts of all believers is the desire to pay homage to Him. He speaks to us in Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit strives with us to make us effective servants.
Short comings are evident in yours truly, yet you are patient and sharing. This is valued. Yet, Jesus was sharp with the religious leaders of the day. He gave us a template for our own lives and the same that we might discern false teaching as we may encounter it.
While belief is our foundation, it is only the beginning. The lord changes us through pre-ordained works that we are able to perform. It makes us effective and gives us the comfort and assurance of salvation. We are no longer our own for we were purchased at a price! We see the change in our life.
John 4:23-24 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
2 Corinthians 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Philippians 3:3For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—
Thank you for the ten fingers of faith illustration, a valuable reminder.
Yours in the joy of Christ,
Brian
Brian Young:
“Our faith”? Generally speaking as you appear to be a fellow Christian, you share some important things with our Catholic faith, and in that sense only when speaking about Christians as a whole, a general categorizing of all Christians as part of the “Christian faith” is marginally acceptable.
However, “our faith” is misleading and simply not the case when commenting on things that are presented from the Catholic perspective in a Catholic journal. To be more honest moving forward, I urge you to clearly identify the Protestant perspective you write from instead of claiming what you set forth is another part of “our faith.”
Of course, eventually converting (sooner rather than later) to the one true faith of Catholicism would be best of all, but unless and until that blessed event becomes a reality (provided you are willing to seriously explore this possibility), please do indeed make it clear that you do not comment from a Catholic perspective.
__________________
Regarding your Protestant perspective on this CWR article, please note that, as is true for many Protestant perspectives, the one set forth by you here lacks many things that Catholics are also called upon to do that go beyond merely meditating on God’s word (in Scripture) and prayer and “wrestling” with this or that. Moreover, as is almost always the case, your comments are made up primarily of various NT biblical quotations (from a flawed version of the bible like the KJV?) with some on point and others not on point regarding the topic or topics of the article, but such is a basic evangelization approach from the limited Protestant perspective.
As Catholics, our meditation on the Word is, of course, not only limited to Scripture (the inane and at bottom sinfully proud sola scriptura practice), but indeed on the entire person of Christ that includes Scripture, and also in what Holy Tradition and the Teaching Magisterium reveal about the Lord.
Good luck and God Bless.
Dear DocVerit.
It was appropriate for you to request Brian Young to explain his relationship with The Catholic Church, for beloved brother Brian makes so many keen observations regarding our Church.
It was, dear DocVerit, inappropriate for you to rudely attack the common Protestant position of reliance on Holy Scripture – “the inane and at bottom sinfully proud sola scriptura practice.” Not only was that parody of yours lacking in Christian charity, but it was based on ignorance of our Faith.
The finest distillate that we Catholics have of Magisterial teaching of Scripture and Tradition is available to all in ‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church’, promulgated by Saint Pope John Paul II.
If you’d care to check, dear DocVerit, you’ll find that our sainted Pope built the whole of our Catechism on more than 3,500 citations from ‘The New Testament’.
Saint Pope John Paul II discerned what you, and quite a few other Catholics fail to discern. That is: that faithfulness of The Body to God-With-Us, King Jesus Christ, our One & Only Head, is absolutely dependent on faithfulness to The Holy Spirit-anointed Apostolic witness of the 27 texts of the 9 inspired authors of ‘The New Testament’.
Incidentally, Catholic versions of The Holy Bible draw heavily on many excellent Protestant biblical studies of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek & Latin, as any competent Catholic exegete will confirm.
As an 80-year-old Catholic academic who has experienced Catholic practice in many countries, I’ve seen that the average faithful Catholic is shamefully lazy in regard to lovingly studying ‘The New Testament’ – the best witness we have to Our Beloved Lord’s life and teachings.
However, I’m in full accord with you, dear DocVerit, in inviting beloved brother Brian to join our Church without delay, but never because Catholic Scriptural faithfulness is greater . . !
Take care; stay well.
Ever in the love of King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
I disagree that DocVerit’s post ‘rudely attacked” Protestant positions. One’s personal reliance upon scripture or faith in Jesus Christ alone were condemned at Trent as excommunicable offenses against the Catholic Faith.
The teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church for millennia — the beliefs of the Church based on scripture, tradition (writings of Church Fathers) and the deposit of faith as handed on by the Church’s Magisterium — represent the fullness of the Catholic Faith.
The Catholic Faith differs from the idea of salvation found by protestants in their numerous sects and branches and faith definitions. Trent declared many protestant ideas as anathema and termed them excommunicable. The documents of the Council of Trent can be found online.
The faith of Protestants is NOT the Catholic Faith. For updated theology as to why Catholic and Protestants are less brothers than commonly believed or hoped or argued by both, Ratzinger’s “The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood” is a valuable resource.
P.S.: The principle of sola scriptura is not found anywhere in Sacred Scripture. That principle therefore cannot be reasonably argued.
Adsentior.
Dear Meiron:
A cordial invitation i extended to take a point and specifically address your view. Generalizations are one matter, however a specific point well argued may win the day! Anticipating your response.
Yours in Christ,
Brian
Dear Meiron, you have attacked a ‘straw man’; for it was never said that every believer should depend on The Bible alone.
Hopefully you are a Catholic who actually participates in Holy Mass. You would then know of the honor we give ‘The Holy Gospel’ – by standing whilst it is read, acclaiming it with loud joy, and proclaiming: “This is The Word of The Lord! Glory be to You Lord Jesus Christ!”
Inescapably, by these words, we Catholics commit ourselves to obedience to ‘The Word of God’. Our words show we believe there’s nothing higher.
You have expressed strong anti-Protestant emotions, dear Meiron but, as a passionate Catholic, at Holy Mass you regularly afford supreme honor to ‘The New Testament’ – unless you sit silently during the Gospel reading.
Over the years one observes quite a few Catholics who get angry if directed to specific instructions given by The Lord. Largely, it seems, because they feel inferior, lacking sufficient knowledge of The Word to respond. Scandalously, this is true of those priests & bishops whose love for ‘The Word of God’ has grown cold. Is Protestant-bashing largely a cover for one’s laziness about lovingly learning God’s Word . . ?
As ‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church’ makes abundantly plain, there is a perfect harmony between Christ’s Word, and The Church His Body.
Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI both affirmed that; yet – “the not-so-divine project being pushed by Cardinals McElroy, Cupich, Hollerich, and others, such as Fr. James Martin, SJ” – shamelessly sabotages that Holy Spirit-anointed Catholic harmony. Carl’s article makes this perfectly clear.
A serious point, dear Meiron: who is closest to you: a nominal Catholic Christian who is defying God’s Word or a sincere Non-Catholic Christian who is honoring God’s Word . . ?
Of course, in the end: “God knows those who love God.”
Always in the grace & mercy of The Lamb of God; love & blessings from marty
Fine insights, meiron, and thanks for your supporting comments. Since Dr. Rice has also set forth similarly bogus arguments directed toward me, I will address many of his unjust comments to you in your fine defense of the Church, and this will suffice (at least for now) to also address most of his silly arguments directed toward me as well.
Rice: Dear Meiron, you have attacked a ‘straw man’; for it was never said that every believer should depend on The Bible alone.
DV: Actually, it is Dr. Rice who sets up a straw man by misrepresenting your position (and mine) regarding the honor we grant to Holy Scripture. Moreover, Protestants do indeed profess sola scriptura, and that is what you rightly point out and rightly criticize.
Rice: Inescapably, by these words, we Catholics commit ourselves to obedience to ‘The Word of God’. Our words show we believe there’s nothing higher.
DV: Actually, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is higher than Scripture. You know it; I know it, but Dr. Rice wrongly claims that nothing is higher than Scripture.
Rice: You have expressed strong anti-Protestant emotions, dear Meiron but, as a passionate Catholic, at Holy Mass you regularly afford supreme honor to ‘The New Testament’ – unless you sit silently during the Gospel reading.
DV: Again, Catholics afford great honor to the New Testament, but supreme honor is always due to God alone, and in the Mass, once again it is the Real Presence of Christ that should be honored above the New Testament even though the New Testament is indeed highly honored. You never said it wasn’t, nor have I, yet Dr. Rice acts as if our sound criticism of the Protestant heretical point of view is somehow a failure to honor scripture as we should.
Rice: Over the years one observes quite a few Catholics who get angry if directed to specific instructions given by The Lord. Largely, it seems, because they feel inferior, lacking sufficient knowledge of The Word to respond. Scandalously, this is true of those priests & bishops whose love for ‘The Word of God’ has grown cold. Is Protestant-bashing largely a cover for one’s laziness about lovingly learning God’s Word . . ?
DV: Pure balderdash and a most unjust suggestion of Protestant-bashing as possibly a cover for one’s laziness about lovingly learning God’s Word. Again, there is nothing in your comments, nor in mine, nor in Peter Beaulieu’s, nor in others that give any impression of laziness about lovingly learning God’s Word. One who truly loves God’s Word always recognize its limitations and do indeed properly bash the heretical sola scriptura nonsense presented by Brian Young and Protestants in general. When such is done, apologists for Protestants cry that such is some kind of unjust Protestant-bashing when in point of fact, it is a most just criticism of heretical Protestant doctrine/practice that is harmful to all.
Rice: As ‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church’ makes abundantly plain, there is a perfect harmony between Christ’s Word, and The Church His Body.
DV: Duh. This is a basic Catholic belief, but sound Catholics understand that perfect harmony is not the same thing as Scriptures accorded the highest honor as Dr. Rice wrongly asserts elsewhere.
Rice: A serious point, dear Meiron: who is closest to you: a nominal Catholic Christian who is defying God’s Word or a sincere Non-Catholic Christian who is honoring God’s Word . . ?
DV: Wow. This old chestnut that completely misses the point. First note the use of “Catholic Christian” that is silly and somewhat insulting to members of the Faith. Do you know of any Catholic who is not Christian? Since Dr. Rice is addressing you and other Catholics, adding the superfluous “Christian” to Catholic is the way some non-Catholics refer to Catholics, but Catholics doing the same in the context presented by Dr. Rice is done to try to add a kind of equivalence between various denominations. In essence, it says the Catholic Church is just one Christian body among others instead of being the One and Only True Church established by our Lord.
Next, all non-Catholic Christians do not fully honor God’s Word, they screw up a great deal of it, they do not fully honor the Lord by obeying his command to be part of His One True Church, and so on. This is the point that you and I have made as well as others in critiquing the Protestant perspective spewed by people like Brian Young that is often repugnant to the Faith and needs to be vigorously challenged in our love of truth and the Truth. It has absolutely nothing to do with how well or how poorly one practices either the fullness of Faith or a limited heretical Faith. Another straw man by Dr. Rice who wrongly accuses you of attacking a straw man.
Keep up the fine work, meiron, and many, many thanks for standing up for Our Lord and His One True Church.
God Bless
DV
Th shamelesspopery website also may prove useful. shamelesspopery.com/how-should-we-solve-disputes-on-theology/
And calledtocommunion.
Dear DocVerit:
Thank you for your remarks, they are offered in the spirit of helpfulness.
Those who believe in Christ owe a debt to the Roman Catholic Church for codifing the New Testament. It is to our eternal blessing and as we consider the Old Testament, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Jews. Our Saviour is King of the Jews, no less.
Though I have offended you in some regard, that was not the intention. When we are hard pressed, Holy Scripture and prayer is of comfort and gives direction.
Others have asked of my denomination, yet is concordance through understanding a better path?
You mentioned the King James Bible. Though it is on the bookshelf. there are better translations today. For the Catholic, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary is a valuable resource. The NIV may hold some interest as well.
You have spoken in general terms about a “limited Protestant perspective”. Would you take a specific point that you feel should be addressed and elaborate?
God bless you,
Brian Young
Responding to DocVerit, Rice and Brian,
The “specific point” requested by Brother Brian is twofold.
FIRST, that the ancient Church already existed prior to our writing of the New Testament. That the living Church, already indwelled by the Holy Spirit, not only “codified” but wrote (!) the New Testament Scriptures.
And, SECOND, that the Magisterium to which Brother DocVerit refers further above, is the sacramental Real Presence of the Person of Christ in the Sacrifice/Communion of the Mass. Therefore, something about the Apostolic Succession as bringing forward the renewal and extension of the singular (!) sacrifice of Calvary, across space, time and all of history.
So, since the Second Vatican Council the greater attention to scriptural readings at the Mass, I suppose, is partly a recognition of the Protestant initiative—to attend to the Scriptures (written by the Church!)—but the readings do not replace—but even point to—sacramental incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ.
Brother Rice refers correctly to the Catechism and its multiple scriptural references, but then witnessed within the Catechism we prominently find n. 1374 on the Eucharist where “the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially” [italics] contained. Nothing less. The Eucharist as a symbol but also being that which it symbolizes. Luther waffled, and Calvin denied.
While to some tastes Brother DocVerit adds too much spice to his comment, I fully agree that real dialogue cannot take place until Brother Brian moves beyond his practice of superimposing his sola Scriptura premise on his Catholic dialogue partners. Please come out from behind the curtain so we can begin a real dialogue. Mud wrestling on the pages of CWR doesn’t count for much.
(A concise rundown on translations of the Bible into vernacular languages [including German] prior to Luther—this can be supplied in another overly long comment, if desired.)
Dear Peter:
Thank you for your interpretation. One of the best approaches believers in Christ can adopt is to discuss the costs and benefits of a proposition. In the field of architecture, you know quality costs money. The edifice that is Jesus Christ is without equal. The irony is that it costs us nothing but our pride! Yet, how like God to ask us what we can do instead of what we can’t.
Can we rely upon scripture as a reliable and fulsome guide? A very important question for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. God answers our questions, some will argue that the Bible is a complete and sufficient resource to advise us. In fairness, you will want to present a position based on Church tradition, Dogma and the Catechism. Yet scripture makes its case with the following:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
You have set yourself a task, yet all will benefit from your fact based proposal
Thank you once again and God bless you,
Brian
Brother Brian,
Hast thou literally misrepresented scripture, in asserting that Christ is the architectural “edifice”? Rather, Christ is the “cornerstone,” and the sacramental members of the Church(!) are the edifice:
“The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:7).
“You also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).
Your personal devotion to Christ, of course, is an inspiration. But are you possibly orphaned and missing out on something more? Protestant converts often remark that they have left nothing behind, but that in the Church found what they thought they had always had.
Winston Churchill has something to say about this moment: “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”
People don’t really need to debate a particular point with you. Face it, you’re just not as good at covering yourself as you assume. You shouldn’t be posting on a Catholic website pretending to be Catholic when you are not. Since you are fond of quoting the Bible, what do the scriptures say about lying? Physician heal thyself.
I don’t know that Brian (Young) has ever presented himself as a Catholic. I’ve not seen that.
Dear Athanasius:
It is good to come along side of CWR. For me it is a learning experience. The writers are thought provoking and have a spiritual bent which is a blessing. The comments come from educated people that want to honour the Lord (another big plus).
Your criticism is an aid to betterment and appreciated. Though we may differ on some matters, you bring a lot to the discussion table, enriching the reader. Keep up the good work.
Many blessings,
Brian
Ah, Brian. Thanks for your response. Even when you try to make it look like you are being complimentary, oftentimes you are disingenuous in presenting the heretical Protestant perspective but unjustly still employing the “royal we” when there is no “we” when it comes to such things. Perhaps someday but not today.
For starters, those who believe in Christ not only owe a debt to the Roman Catholic Church for what you set forth as ‘codifying’ the New Testament, wise followers of Christ actually owe a debt to the Roman Catholic Church for definitively setting forth the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments, with roughly some 7 books of the Old Testament wrongly listed as Apocrypha (so much for sola scriptura in making this pronouncement – laughable hypocrisy indeed) by Protestants and others for spurious reasons. Basic Apologetics 101 set forth the legitimate reasons for Christ’s One True Church and no other setting forth the canonical books while all other denominations do not have such authority. Now instead of me going into greater detail on the history of the canons of the Old and New Testament, the very capable ‘Catholic Answers’ website provides the essence of the claim, profoundly exposes the numerous errors in the Protestant approach, and explains the great reality understood by sound Catholics that Christ established His Church to protect, promulgate, and guide our understanding of the Scriptures. Christ did not come here to set up a myriad of bible societies, which is what many Protestant denominations ultimately come down to being after paying lip service to being “saved,” a most important concept they also botch since they do not possess the correct Catholic understanding.
Now when it comes to the Bible as a whole, note that the only fully sound one (with an allowance for differing Catholic versions based on the definitive canon) comes out of the Catholic Church; the Church does not come out of the Bible, which coincides more with the false Protestant perspective of Bible only authority wherein anybody can declare that he or she is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and hundreds of different interpretations and denominations arise. Remarkable: who would have thought that the Holy Spirit turns out to be the ultimate diversity czar granting thousands of Protestant denominations the right to declare “our truth.” Oh well, the super-flawed philosophy of relativism is another characteristic of many Protestant musings.
By the bye, you say you owe a debt of gratitude to the Jews, which is commendable. However, do you believe that Jews can be saved and enjoy eternal life with God even if they never profess faith in Christ in this world? Any biblical quotations you come up with to substitute for a deeper thinking will be inadequate since they are already known by the Catholic Faith in proper form and have been accurately interpreted to provide the only sound and correct answer that eludes the much weaker thinking Protestant perspective.
________
Next comes your royal we “When we are hard-pressed, Holy Scripture and prayer is of comfort and gives direction.” But of course the correct Catholic understanding is that Holy Scripture can only give true comfort and true direction if it coincides directly with Catholic teaching. To any extent that any interpretation differs from the known/approved Catholic interpretation, it will be wrong and perhaps provide false and misleading comfort and a wrong direction. The same goes for many prayers. If any of them include anything outside the truth of Catholicism, such are not helpful and could indeed be harmful.
________
Next, in once again dodging the denomination question, you ask somewhat rhetorically “is concordance through understanding a better path?”
Answer: Big Time No. At best it might help in the conversion process, but ultimate concordance is achieved only in being united fully with Christ in His One True Church, which is and always will be the Catholic Church and no other. Moreover, greater understanding leads one to the Catholic Church and the opportunity for the greatest union with Christ that is not provided by any Protestant denomination. In addition, Christ set up His One True Church and invites people to follow His command by being a part of it; not just claim some nebulous “concordance through understanding,” and join merely man-made churches in direct violation of Christ’s command and Christ Himself in setting up His One Church; not multitudes of churches.
___________
When it comes to various bibles, it is simply wrong to recommend to Catholics in general any bible or bible commentary (save for some possible academic study) that is not approved by the Catholic Church. The “New Jerusalem Biblical Commentary” has some questionable elements but is marginally okay as a Catholic commentary. However, the NIV Bible is not a Catholic Bible and it leaves out the valid deutero-canonical books. More importantly, it is a complete disaster that contains many words and phrases translated in ways that favor a Protestant understanding and not a Catholic one. And yet you claim such is for the Catholic despite the fact that it contains many passages that can lead Catholics away from Catholic beliefs. This despicable recommendation is remarkably insincere and reveals perhaps more directly what’s frequently in play in your Protestant form of commenting on various articles by surreptitiously claiming an affinity with Catholics all the while emphasizing a Protestant take on things. You know, if the situation were reversed here and I was commenting in let’s say a magazine known as “Protestant World Report,” I would never recommend something labeled as “for the Protestant” and slip in a Catholic Version of the Bible as if it was just a Protestant or neutral version of the Bible that Protestants might have some interest in.
__________
As for your “limited Protestant perspective,” your entire approach reeks of it for the reasons already stated.
So Brian, enough with the game you’ve been playing that has duped many. Stop pretending that you are providing a kind of ecumenical take on things that Catholics should be able to find common ground with when such is simply not the case. Be more honest and open about your Protestant perspective by dropping the “we believe” and “our” this or that and so on when such are clearly not the case, and comment as you’d like, but not under the guise of presenting something as being in line with Catholic teaching when it actually goes against Catholic teaching.
God Bless!
Dear DocVerit:
Thank you for your fulsome reply. It is good to get matters off ones chest. Some feel that a protestant is the next thing to a heathen, yet too we proclaim Christ crucified!
CWR provides an opportunity to grow our faith. If one disagrees with a standpoint, still it causes us to ponder matters.
Perhaps I don’t make much of a statement, However God does and for us to be blessed by His word leaves us better than we were found. People on this forum speak from the heart and that is a joy.
Scientific American is an interesting magazine, can one imagine having the spiritual conversations we engage in at CWR? One may say the magazines have a different focus, still science is a gift from God that we may have fuller lives and honour the Lord, aright!
Though I have not spoken to most of your points, they never the less have merit and perhaps in the fullness of time we can explore them!
God bless you,
Brian
Mark 9:38-40 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us.
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Romans 10:14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
Correction: “New Jerome Biblical Commentary”
Ah, Brian. Thanks for your response. Even when you try to make it look like you are being complimentary, oftentimes you are disingenuous in presenting the heretical Protestant perspective but unjustly still employing the “royal we” when there is no “we” when it comes to such things. Perhaps someday but not today.
For starters, those who believe in Christ not only owe a debt to the Roman Catholic Church for what you set forth as ‘codifying’ the New Testament, wise followers of Christ actually owe a debt to the Roman Catholic Church for definitively setting forth the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments, with roughly some 7 books of the Old Testament wrongly listed as Apocrypha (so much for sola scriptura in making this pronouncement – laughable hypocrisy indeed) by Protestants and others for spurious reasons. Basic Apologetics 101 set forth the legitimate reasons for Christ’s One True Church and no other setting forth the canonical books while all other denominations do not have such authority. Now instead of me going into greater detail on the history of the canons of the Old and New Testament, the very capable ‘Catholic Answers’ website provides the essence of the claim, profoundly exposes the numerous errors in the Protestant approach, and explains the great reality understood by sound Catholics that Christ established His Church to protect, promulgate, and guide our understanding of the Scriptures. Christ did not come here to set up a myriad of bible societies, which is what many Protestant denominations ultimately come down to believing after paying lip service to being “saved,” a most important concept they also botch since they do not possess the correct Catholic understanding.
Now when it comes to the Bible as a whole, note that the only fully sound one (with an allowance for differing Catholic versions based on the definitive canon) comes out of the Catholic Church; the Church does not come out of the Bible, which coincides more with the false Protestant perspective of Bible only authority wherein anybody can declare that he or she is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and hundreds of different interpretations and denominations arise. Remarkable: who would have thought that the Holy Spirit turns out to be the ultimate diversity czar granting thousands of Protestant denominations the right to declare “our truth.” Oh well, the super-flawed philosophy of relativism is another characteristic of many Protestant musings.
By the bye, you say you owe a debt of gratitude to the Jews, which is commendable. However, do you believe that Jews can be saved and enjoy eternal life with God even if they never profess faith in Christ in this world? Any biblical quotations you come up with to substitute for a deeper thinking will be inadequate since they are already known by the Catholic Faith in proper form and have been accurately interpreted to provide the only sound and correct answer that eludes the much weaker thinking Protestant perspective.
________
Next comes your royal we “When we are hard-pressed, Holy Scripture and prayer is of comfort and gives direction.” But of course the correct Catholic understanding is that Holy Scripture can only give true comfort and true direction if it coincides directly with Catholic teaching. To any extent that any interpretation differs from the known/approved Catholic interpretation, it will be wrong and perhaps provide false and misleading comfort and a wrong direction. The same goes for many prayers. If any of them include anything outside the truth of Catholicism, such are not helpful and could indeed be harmful.
________
Next, in once again dodging the denomination question, you ask somewhat rhetorically “is concordance through understanding a better path?”
Answer: Big Time No. At best it might help in the conversion process, but ultimate concordance is achieved only in being united fully with Christ in His One True Church, which is and always will be the Catholic Church and no other. Moreover, greater understanding leads one to the Catholic Church and the opportunity for the greatest union with Christ that is not provided by any Protestant denomination. In addition, Christ set up His One True Church and invites people to follow His command by being a part of it; not just claim some nebulous “concordance through understanding,” and join merely man-made churches in direct violation of Christ’s command and Christ Himself in setting up His One Church; not multitudes of churches.
___________
When it comes to various bibles, it is simply wrong to recommend to Catholics any bible or bible commentary (save for some possible academic study) that is not approved by the Catholic Church. The “New Jerusalem Biblical Commentary” has some questionable elements but is marginally okay as a Catholic commentary. However, the NIV Bible is not a Catholic Bible and it leaves out the valid deutero-canonical books. More importantly, it is a complete disaster that contains many words and phrases translated in ways that favor a Protestant understanding and not a Catholic one. And yet you claim such is for the Catholic despite the fact that it contains many passages that can lead Catholics away from Catholic beliefs. Despite your nice guy image, this despicable recommendation is remarkably insincere and reveals perhaps more directly what’s frequently in play in your Protestant form of commenting on various articles by surreptitiously claiming an affinity with Catholics all the while emphasizing a Protestant take on things. You know, if the situation were reversed here and I was commenting on let’s say a magazine known as “Protestant World Report,” I would never recommend something labeled as “for the Protestant” and slip in a Catholic Version of the Bible as if it was just a Protestant or neutral version of the Bible that Protestants might have some interest in.
__________
As for your “limited Protestant perspective,” your entire approach reeks of it for the reasons already stated.
So Brian, enough with the game you’ve been playing that has duped many. Stop pretending that you are providing a kind of ecumenical take on things that Catholics should be able to find common ground with when such is simply not the case. Be more honest and open about your Protestant perspective by dropping the “we believe” and “our” this or that and so on when such are clearly not the case, and comment as you’d like, but not under the guise of presenting something as being in line with Catholic teaching when it actually goes against Catholic teaching.
God Bless!
Dear DocVerit:
Seeing that you repeat yourself, these matters are important to you. I will attempt to answer you, however ask that you raise one point at a time. We can discuss it at length and then you can raise the next aspect.
Let”s begin.
Yours in Christ,
Brian
Thank you, Mr. Olson, for so thoroughly autopsying the DOA arguments of the double-dealing Cardinal Cupich.
That a man can reach such a lofty post in the Church while being such an intellectual lightweight is somewhat disturbing. He’s like a waterbug, darting around on the surface of an argument, causing barely a ripple as he passes by.
Thank you, too, for demonstrating quite nicely how Cupich lifts Ratzinger/Benedict’s quotes out of context, while ignoring reams of other Ratzinger quotes that baldly contradict his erroneous interpretations.
It’s difficult to believe that these lapses are not malicious attempts to deceive, since they are so blatant and so definitively stated.
I have to say, Bergoglio’s crop of cardinals certainly seems to be — to this casual observer anyway — a fairly unimpressive bunch. Unless, of course, their faithfulness is of less interest to the pope than their political convictions.
In that case, he’s got himself some in-your-face progressive difference makers — which is exactly what we don’t need in positions of leadership in Jesus’ one, holy and apostolic Church.
Well stated, dear Brineyman.
It’s the Truth that will set us free from the lies intended to bind us.
Ever in the love of Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
I’m sorry, but when I see (old) grown men dressed as failed Black rappers, I have to giggle and thank Odin, Ra, The Big Kahuna or whoever you want to call him/her/other and glad I made the decision at the age of 8, that there was in all probability no God, Afterlife or Final Judgement. So to view comments by people beating themselves up over the worship of a Late Neolithic/ Bronze Age diety, is somewhat perplexing. Enjoy your life as you’re a long time dead. Thank you, and may The Force Be with You!
I’m sorry, but when I read these sort of comments, I take atheists even less seriously than ever. Which is difficult, as I already have a very low view of petulant, unfunny, snarky trolls who clearly need a life and a proper education.
Dear Christopher:
Yes, one is able to make an informed decision at “age of 8”! Perhaps you are rethinking your choice as you find yourself here. A fuller perspective may help one to discern God and that He loves His creation. Still if ones denies Him how can that person expect any good from Him?
Though man may fail us, God is love and helps the believer to succeed spiritually. The trials of life can be overwhelming without the foundation of hope, faith and God’s love.
1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Romans 8:5-8 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
There are some very spiritual, godly people on this website that can answer questions you may have.
God bless you as you consider these things,
Brian Young
Dearly beloved brother Brian.
Thank you for all the effort and knowledge you’ve contributed in your many thoughtful comments on CWR articles.
One disapproves of the heavy-handed. domineering responses to you by some who imagine they are learned expositors of our beautiful Catholic Church.
Yet, they are right (and I speak in The Holy Spirit, as the least of the servants of Our Lord Jesus Christ) in discerning that NOW is the time for you to join us. Most humbly I suggest one way to do this is to ask beloved brother Carl Olson to mentor you through this process; Carl is well qualified to do that.
Why? Because at this critical stage in Catholic Church history we are greatly in need of more lovers of God’s Word who are obedient to its Divine Author. As a Catholic, dear Brian, you would be able to help those who are keeping the Church on the narrow way that Jesus Christ has set before us. You’d be an eternal blessing.
Always in the grace & mercy of The Only Begotten Son of God; love & blessings from marty
Dear Dr Marty:
Thank you for your kind invitation and sharing the gentle spirit God has given you. People in your parish have a brother who learns and then teaches with insight and compassion. You are certainly not alone, God gives talents that are used to further His kingdom.
It is a joy to know Carl has found his spiritual home. He receives well deserved accolades and he uses his talents to cause us to think. There are a number of brothers and sisters in the Lord that have been an encouragement to yours truly (through CWR).
At this point in time, the best option might be to continue to share God’s word on CWR. You and others have mentioned the drought of God’s word in some parishes.
Faithful priests such Dr Fr Peter are a big aid in helping us find and stay on the path righteousness.
God bless you dear brother, you mean a great deal to many.
Brian
The diminutive, heterodox Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago deserves to be excluded from the life of the church and her ministry until he repents, publicly rejects his moral relativism, incredulity and heresy and fully embraces the tenets of the faith.
Yes, absolutely! But where are the men with the strength, courage, and wisdom to carry out that necessary task? The flock seems to protect its own rather than cast them out.
It is starting. The outcry against pretenders grows by the day!
Psalm 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
Psalm 73:26 My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.
1 Chronicles 16:11 Seek the Lord and his strength; seek his presence continually!
Deuteronomy 31:6 Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you.”
Blessings
Loss of the Consciousness of Sin, a topic that deserves further discussion, further introspection. Introspection because of the underlying interior reality that makes for consciousness of sin.
It can be initially understood as our natural awareness of good and evil. Eve lost her innocence at the forbidden tree with knowledge of good and evil. The inference is that an unmarred life of grace is not disposed to envision, or realize evil, the propensity of the will always toward what is good and beautiful. The soul created in God’s image is vividly aware of that good. After the Garden Fall of its opposition.
This innate feature of the soul cannot be erased [in contradiction to Card Cupich’s allegation of inhibition of the Holy Spirit, or presumptions regarding Pope Francis’ God of surprises]. Even when buried with layers of rationalization the awareness remains [why civil law holds the mentally ill responsible despite psychological illness if that person seeks to conceal their misdeed]. And why we remain responsible for an evil act whatever the conditions, except when the will is sufficiently impaired. And why we have the confessional.
For further discussion on the “loss of consciousness of sin,” see Benedict XVI as quoted by yours truly in the first comment under this article (Feb. 18, 9:38 p.m.)
Thanks Peter, I read it earlier and appreciated Benedict’s account. “They have merely suppressed their awareness of the skeletons in their closets” references this innate awareness that can’t be erased.
Also, the personal conscience formator bent on justifying evil can train himself, as in “(second) The loss of the ability to see one’s guilt”. While the eyes of the soul may subdue a conscious awareness the subconscious does not. The intensive justification of a lie is itself manifest awareness. In every instance of this form of self deception, guilt manifests itself, sometimes as inordinate rage, frequently preoccupation with pointing out the moral failures of others, or some physical dysfunction [poor digestion and inordinate gaseous emission one symptom. Adolf, besides moments of extreme rage, had a terrible noxious flatulence problem see William Shirer Rise and Fall of the Third Reich]. Awareness is never extinguished, simply controverted.
Further thoughts on Loss of Consciousness of Sin. The substrata of conscientious denial of sin and [sense] of freedom from guilt is the initial, primordial denial of the interior judgment [ratio] of our inborn ability to judge what is good and what is evil. Not, as is now taught, an advance of understanding the Gospels as a deeper, merciful love of Christ juxtaposed to Mosaic law, and most significant, Natural Law.
Insofar as Card Cupich’s “A church called to love perfectly” his approach to sin is very close to what Fr Josef Fuchs SJ wrote in his 1965 text Natural Law. Fuchs distinguished the natural law of the Creator Word from the soteriological love of the Redeemer. The redeemer, Christ, in Fuchs’ perception taught a love distinct from the former in that it surpassed the strictures of law [natural].
As a student Blase Cupich studied and received an MA in theology 1975 from the prestigious Gregorian Pontifical Institute. Fuchs was on the staff at the time and it would be expected Cupich studied under him. Josef Fuchs’ thought has had wide influence worldwide particularly among Jesuits. A theological affinity with Pope Francis likely.
Error is evident [as pointed out in Olson’s essay] in this interpretation of Christ’s Gospel. That error is the omission of the irrevocable doctrine of repentance, which is the repudiation of sin, and the modeling of one’s life after that of Christ. An absolute necessity for one’s justification and redemption.
Carl, thank you for defending ppBXVI. It is worth noting that 2 years after the presentation of the Archbishop of Buenos Aires as Pope, ppBXVI wrote to Vladimir Palko: “As one sees the power of Anti-Christ spreading, one can only pray that the Lord will give us mighty shepherds to defend His Church against the power of evil in this Hour of need.”
In the absence of a visible army of Bishop Schneiders, a few mightily brave and independent journalists are welcome foot soldiers.
God bless you, sir.