When I was in the seminary, I studied under the late great moral theologian Germain Grisez. Despite his deeply orthodox and conservative theological orientation, he was adamantly opposed to the pre-conciliar “Index of forbidden books” approach to theological discipline in the Church. He was also generally opposed to the culture of silencing theologians—who were mostly priests at that time—by forbidding them to publish and so forth. His argument was that all such acts of raw authority did not have the intended effect of ridding the Church of the theological arguments present in the writings of these theologians. Rather, all it tended to do was to drive these theologians underground, so to speak, where they continued to write and disseminate their views to close friends and to squirrel away their manuscripts in their desk drawers for future use should the opportunity arise.
And that opportunity arose after the Council, which explains why almost overnight, we saw an explosion of these errant theologies in the public domain. Grisez thought a better approach was to formulate sound theological answers to the arguments these theologians were presenting and to offer up better answers to the questions they were raising. For example, even though he was adamantly opposed to the moral theology of theologians like Charles Curran, he never once thought that Curran should be silenced (magisterially corrected, yes; silenced, no) and Grisez then set out to develop his own moral theology in many books that gave us better theological arguments than those of the dissenters.
Along these lines, Joseph Ratzinger noted that the reason for the Church’s early draconian response to modernism in a highly defensive mode was that the Church had not yet developed the theological resources to combat it head-on. For example, there was at that time no Catholic Scripture scholarship capable of truly dealing with the new methods of critical biblical research. But even Ratzinger affirmed that this just kicked the can down the road and that the arguments of the modernists still needed to be dealt with on a theological level.
The fact of the matter is that the arguments of the more liberal or “modernist” theologians before the Council were never really answered in a convincing way by the standard neo-Scholastic theology of that time. The neo-Scholastic theologians thought they did, but in reality all of their arguments were grounded in a deductive logic that began with the immutability and certainty of the authority of Revelation as this has been interpreted and handed down by the Magisterium, and ended with a simple quod erat demonstrandum conclusion.
The neo-Scholastics missed the mark because what the dissenters were questioning precisely was the legitimacy of the Magisterium to issue definitive interpretations of Revelation in a manner that was seemingly above historical conditioning and the limitations of perspective. They were thorough-going historicists and perspectivalists. They were wrong, of course, but my point is that it does no good to double down on magisterial authority as an effective tool at counteracting the effects of modernism when it is that very magisterial authority as the producer of “timeless doctrines” that was being called into question.
What was needed were sound arguments against their historicism and perspectivalism that took the reality of history and perspective seriously in a non-dismissive manner. And to show how you can actually use those realities in a manner far more sophisticated than that of the dissenters. This is what the Ressourcement theologians set out to do, as well as numerous fine Thomistic thinkers. And their theology went a long way toward producing a profound and cogent response to the liberal theological challenge.
This process culminated in the Council, which also sought to counter bad theology—not with silencing, but with better theology. Which is why many critics of the Council fail to understand that the Council was so verbose. Instead of relying on raw magisterial authority and issuing condemnations and anathemas, the conciliar fathers sought to formulate a kind of magisterial Ressourcement theology that they presumed would win the day.
But Ressourcement theology, Thomistic theology, and the Council itself did not win the day. So here we are, more than a century after the modernist crisis emerged, in the midst of a Synod whose main leaders are still waving the liberal banner.
As regular readers know, I have been very critical of those leaders and of the Pope for empowering them in many articles I have written on the dangers posed by this fact at the Synod. But my point is not to repudiate anything that I have written on that topic but to drive home the reality that the game is afoot, lads and lassies, and so we better cinch up our belts, eschew all lazy thinking about “the great apostasy” or sedevacantism or “Pope Francis is a heretic”, and realize that this is the reality of the Church we inhabit and get on with it.
It is instructive, therefore, to ask why it is that Ressourcement theology and the Council have been eclipsed and they failed to win the day. I said above that we need to counteract bad theology with good theology instead of hoping for some authoritarian deus ex machina to save the day. But that is only part of the answer. Because the reality is that theological arguments are not enough. As Luigi Giussani noted long ago, it is the very secularity of modernity with which we are contending. It has so attenuated the religious sense of most people that they no longer have a capacity for appreciating, let alone comprehending, theological arguments.
In other words, there are pastoral realities on the ground which are the fruit of this dominant secularity that require of us more than just a theological response. Good theology is certainly necessary but not sufficient.
Even Pope Benedict pointed out that the Council fathers were so busy trying to “get the theology right” that they neglected the pastoral dimension of how to get all of that fine theology to trickle down into the Church on the level of experiential praxis. And that blind spot–a form of naivete, in my view, about the full nature of the crisis we face–allowed the liberal wing of the Church to capture the post-conciliar narrative, which created the mess we are in.
The main way that they did this was by appealing to the “lived experience of real people” as somehow displaying the sensus fidelium, which they then identified as the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to us through the “People of God” in an unproblemacized way. They then used this affirmation to foreground the vague category of “experience” as the normative starting point for how doctrines must “develop” in order to respond to this prompting of the Spirit. And, by implication, anyone who opposed this project was accused of being “rigid” and “closed to the movement of the Spirit.”
Sound familiar? The Instrumentum Laboris for the Synod is riddled with this kind of thinking. It is also the best context for understanding the many scoldings of Pope Francis about “rigid backwardists” who refuse to listen to the modern promptings of the Spirit. Pope Francis obviously does not mean by such words that we are now free to reject the very concept of the great Tradition, or the Scriptures, or the doctors of the Church and so on. He is a Catholic, and not a heretic. And it is a waste of our time and energy to argue otherwise. Rather, what he means by such scoldings is that in his view the traditional wing of the Church does not pay sufficient attention to the lived experience of common people; they are too quick to dismiss that experience as a strong indicator of the movement of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, the current goal of so many of the liberal thinkers at the Synod is to argue for a development of doctrine that reflects the changed historical conditions of our time as this is expressed in the simple Christian experience of common people. I’ve already noted that modern liberal theology has changed in some ways from its earlier forms. One of the ways it has changed is that now liberals are willing to acknowledge that Divine Revelation is indeed immutable. But what remains the same is their application of a historicist and perspectivalist hermeneutic to the Church’s ongoing doctrinal exposition of that Revelation. In other words, Revelation cannot change, but our understanding of it does.
And this understanding sometimes evolves in doctrinal directions that may contradict or, at the very least, radically modify, previous doctrinal affirmations. The “indefectibility” of the Church is then redefined as a Church that can make doctrinal mistakes, but that it will eventually “get it right”.
This is a slippery argument because it privileges the present moment and creates a hypertrophic and outsized normativity to the current Zeitgeist. But that is also its appeal. Which is why their views have perdured in the Church, despite theological opposition, and why they so easily took control of the ecclesial narrative. Because the present moment is the one in which we all live and thus we are all infected with its plausibility structures. Thus there is an inherent and powerful appeal for most people that is hard to resist.
Therefore, the more conservative members of the Synod need to come prepared by digging deep into the Ressourcement and Thomistic bag of theological arguments about the proper view of the development of doctrine, the relationship between experience and the formulations of those doctrines, and of the normativity of lived experience in all two thousand years of the Church’s existence as opposed to the experience of five minutes ago. By contrast, what will not do is to simply repeat the mantra that “Revelation cannot change,” as if this is a conversation stopper. Because it has never been a conversation stopper since doctrines do indeed develop.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly of all, we need to realize that good theological arguments are not enough. We should have learned that lesson long ago. Dismissive accusations of heresy and similar insults directed at our liberal fellow Catholics are also not conversation stoppers and never have been. We need instead, this time around, a more effective pastoral strategy that makes use of the greatly increased channels of communication and information one finds in the digital internet age. It won’t be so easy for liberal Catholics to control the narrative since, back in the day, there were far fewer media choke points than now. We have a greater opportunity to get our message out.
Liberal theology is not going away any time soon. It has a perdurance that is grounded in its popular appeal to the reigning cultural ethos. But there are millions of people who are tired of that ethos and who are seeking a spiritual alternative. Let’s be that alternative by building something beautiful and robust accenting the deep riches of the faith without weaponizing them into tools in an ecclesial culture war. Because, if we do, we will lose that culture war. There is no papal Gandalf on the horizon ready to come to the rescue of the forces of Gondor.
We need to build from below with all of the sanctity, prudence, and intelligence we can muster because the perdurance of liberal Catholicism as a viable form of the faith puts forth a challenge that can only be met by even more powerful and viable forms of the faith.
Finally, we need to remember that this too shall pass, no matter what happens at this Synod. Which may be, at the end of the day when all the dust settles next year, a big nothing burger.
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.
In the last year I have attended 2 local churches, one a more conservative church and the other more liberal. The conservative church seems spiritually dead while the more liberal church seems infused with a living spirit. I am aware that the more liberal church is somehow manifesting the spirit of Pope Francis. I am not a theologian but I know where I am inspired. So, argue away, but realize that the realities are not simple.
I agree with you. The contrast between conservative and liberal churches is not always as simple as often presented. The narrative that conservative ones always project the sacred and solemnity of the liturgy is not accurate and not true all the time. I live in a place where this choice and comparison is possible and have attended both. I have chosen and mostly attend the liberal one which consistently enables the people to experience deeply the sacredness and solemnity of the real presence of Christ.
This is sad, what one experiences is experience, not the Holiness and Livingness of God and God the HOLY Spirit…enjoying being ‘inspired’ by disobedience and the human and dark unholy spirits is the problem…may Mary bring you authentically to the Beloved and His Holy Joy, ‘not turning or deviating to the left or right’ as God the Holy Spirit says in His Sacred Writ…blessings
Well said Pater. Well said.
Feelings are paramount it seems.
Yes, Corry, so sad that we return so easily to the Fall of the Garden Eden and measure God while making ourselves, our passions, the measure of knowing and deciding right from wrong, good and evil…eating always satan’s disobedience sentiment morsel and exiting the Beloved God into the night, where it is dark – Judas all over again. BLESSINGS IN JMJ, MAY THEY BE OUR REFUGE ALWAYS!
Well said.
May I ask where your experience is geographically? I experience the complete opposite- the more conservative the parish, the more spiritually alive, societally involved, and more priestly vocations there are, ultimately. The more “progressive” churches have lost parishioners and zeal.
I agree completely. Geographically I am in Poland. But the place matters little. You find closeness to Our Lord and Saviour. Nothing else matters.
Truth well spoken, dear ‘Eulalia’: “. . closeness to Our Lord and Saviour. Nothing else matters.”
“For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our LORD.” Romans 8:37-39
Am wondering if we have 4 basic sorts of Catholics:
1. Those in The Church because they are full of adoring love for Jesus Christ.
2. Those in The Church because they are seeking to be filled with love for Jesus Christ.
3. Those in The Church out of a sense of family or religious obligation or occupational identity.
4. those in The Church who subtly mock at & corrupt the faith of the lovers of Christ Jesus, and who work to reduce The Catholic Church to but another religion among the many religions & philosophies humans have invented.
Let those of the first category, clergy & lay, resolve to prayerfully & humbly evangelize all the others, both clergy & lay.
Let’s pray Psalm 119:125a – “I am Your servant; give me discernment . . ”
Always in the love of The Lamb; blessings from marty
I get you Eugene.
However,my ‘lived experience’ of the ‘living spirit’ places is of slightly cringeful, signaling, feel-good-by-spreading-the-love social clubs. And often, the ‘orthodox’ places, habitually-going-through-the-motions senior citz clubs, or worse still, places of clericalism-olatory.
While away recently, I happened upon a group of monks chanting vespers beautifully in an old manastery chapel. The congregation was completely sympatico and its sense of relieved and blessed appreciation and engagement palpable.
Proving to me that it’s not only preferable, but possible, to manifest the living spirit in an orthodox manner.
Yes. It is, or should be, so
Those in the growth stage of life are not attracted to decaying communities. Thrive with the living: https://reverentcatholicmass.com/map
In the practice of our Catholic faith when an individual seeks to enter the Church, he or she is required to publicly state: “I believe all that the Catholic Church teaches and believes.”
It would have been comforting to hear EVERY participant (including bishops) make that same declaration at the opening of the Synod.
Anyone who puts “Backwardist” in his title can’t be all bad I love it!
Bad enough, though, to warrant contrition.
I would be too, but since childhood, many decades ago, I tried not to be a copycat. Nonetheless, despite being of mature years, I still wear occasional message t-shirts. For my next trip to Rome, I do have two directed to Francis: “Truth is Eternal”, and “It’s virtuous to be a Backwardist”.
Same here. In these troubled times it may truly be a badge of honour.
Reality is simple. As a former atheist, I eventually became a convert at the far end of when the pandering of post VII theologies finally began to run their course, but it was the very pandering to the “experience” of the “people” that kept me out for a long time, unnecessarily. The stupid reasoning of supposed scholarly theologians then was as shocking to me as the persistent silliness of Francis is today.
What exactly is the “lived experience of real people”? A lot of self-deceptions, that’s what it is. Lying to ourselves is the most common of human experiences, right up there with breathing. It requires a lot of lying to one’s self to deny that lying to one’s self is the most common of human experiences. This is what sinners do. It is impossible for sinners to not lie to themselves. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be sinning. Not complicated. Theology doesn’t have to be all that “developed.” God is not an idiot God who deprived the people of the past adequate knowledge of right and wrong.
It requires someone like Francis lying to himself about what the Spirit is doing to believe the truth about the human condition has been hidden only until this moment in history, that God withheld essential truth until now. But Francis has covered that base by having expressed agreement with the process theologians of the silly seventies who contended that God has been in the process of having to learn through history as well His creation.
The notion of a fallible God, a fallible Church, a fallible revelation, or fallible past interpretations that cannot impeach our sins definitively, all service our lies and deceptions, realities that appear nowhere in the discussions of modernist theology or in the agenda of silly synods.
Hi Edward, Based on the context of your commentary, I’m thinking you’re referring specifically to the “lived experience” as defined by the myopic fool Bergoglio. A number of us (prompted by Larry Chapp, the author of the above article) have referred to the “lived experience” of Catholics for the past 2000 years. Something rather well documented, but which Bergoglio, in his ignorance, seems blissfully unaware of. He seems fixated, as Dr. Chapp puts it, “…on the last 5 minutes.” of “lived experience”
Absolutely. It continues to astound me to witness how common it is that there are Catholics at all levels who ignore the reality of self-deception as a part of human experience. It requires self-deception to deny the pervasiveness of self-deception. What are the odds that a single voice will mention it one time at this Synod?
“[Be] a big nothing burger”. Hope springs eternal.
Helpful article. Thanks.
“It has so attenuated the religious sense of most people that they no longer have a capacity for appreciating, let alone comprehending, theological arguments.“
Frightening that this is the real challenge. Liberals “can’t hear” us, as if orthodoxy is another frequency. Modern liberals in the Church aren’t all stubborn or deliberately subverting what they know IS Truth. They are so conformed (bent) to the Secular Age that they literally lack minds where Truth can “plug in.” There are no receptors.
We read: “As Luigi Giussani noted long ago, it is the very secularity of modernity with which we are contending. It has so attenuated the religious sense of most people that they no longer have a capacity for appreciating, let alone comprehending, theological arguments.”
For an analogy (only an analogy!), in the fully secularized bubble-world the meaningful response was not a better theology (than, say, Marxist ideology in Poland), but rather the refusal—personal and together—to any longer keep in step in practice with the “web of mendacity” (Weigel, “The Final Revolution,” 1992). The SIMPLICITY of the Holy Spirit…
What if—theologians sometimes fall short in casting the current moment as a failure to comprehend sound theological arguments and positions, that is, in terms of their trade?
What if—the “secularity of modernity” is, instead, the radically subjective and “self-referential” PREDISPOSITION to simply make stuff up? As in what ghost-writer Fernandez recasts as “the magisterium of Pope Francis”—as if the guarded “deposit of faith” is not always to be better understood, but stood on its head?
What if—the magisterium of the Church is an immune system and simply about NOT making stuff up? (Not mutating, as did some 450 [!] corporate boardrooms when in 2015 they each submitted amicus briefs to the United States Supreme Court to validate oxymoronic gay “marriage.”)?
What if—even the card table FORMAT of the Synod on Synodality is too problematic? By dividing (divide and conquer?) those 450 delegates by language into separate tables? What if the Holy Father’s reminder to reject “ideologies” has been compromised by the ideology of process?
What if—the Church’s grounding in Scripture and Tradition (as Chapp recalls for us) is not so much a theological “position,” but first a STREET-SMART ALERT to resist an all-too-human “predisposition” (“I did it my way:” the lyrics of Frank Sinatra and the lip syncing Cardinal Fernandez)?
THAT IS—with VINCENT OF LERINS/CARDINAL NEWMAN—the Holy Spirit already (!) indwells and speaks within the Mystical Body of Christ and the magisterium, meaning that the role of papal infallibility, as precisely defined, is “not to enfeeble the freedom or vigour of human thought in religious speculation, but[t] to resist and control its extravagance” (Newman, “Apologia Pro Vita Sua”)?
“I don’t think we’re in Kansas [theology] any more, Toto!” (The Wizard of Oz).
An Afterthought:
The prevailing MINDSET seems to be that there is no such thing as contradictions, only contradistinction–or “polarizations”–and that these can be conjoined in a paradigm-shift or “synthesis,” but which also still fully includes the contradictory poles…
Not theological diversity at all, but philosophical congregationalism!
The possible QUESTION facing the “silence” of the lambs (meaning Synodal Shepherds?) is why concrete “mercy” (one pole) can be conjoined with moral and ecclesial falsehood (the second pole), but no longer stand alongside concrete “truth” and the “magisterium”?
That is, the split within the Church and at the Synod is not subtly WHERE “the line” is, but whether there even IS a line.
So, these are apostolic or at least AUGUSTINIAN times—not Thomistic or even Franciscan—and, of our willingness [!] to entertain a double-life of conjoined contradictions, St. Augustine said of himself: “…it is no monstrous thing partly to will a thing and partly not to will it, but a sickness of the MIND [!]. Although it is supported by truth [!], it does not wholly rise up, since it is heavily encumbered by habit. Therefore there are two WILLS, since one of them is not complete, and what is lacking in one of them is present in the other” (“Confessions,” Bk. 8, Ch. 9:21; CAPS added).
Dear Larry, thanks for the very erudite essay appropriately advocating modulation of the plethora of apparently unreasoned outrage at the Francis Faction’s anti-Apostolic maneuvers. But your analysis does not consider that the most provoking Francisisms are not actually concerned with novel doctrinal perspectives on revelation.
Many of Pope Francis-sponsored novelties remain obdurately anti-Apostolic. They propose not just new theological understandings of divine revelations (and you’re right, those need to be addressed by better theology), but they alter, even contradict, the crystal-clear instructions given by Jesus Christ, ruler of the heavens & the earth, through His Apostles and faithful disciples in the Holy Spirit-anointed 27 texts of The New Testament.
We can’t paper-over, dear Larry, that so many become outraged with this Pope’s proposals to administratively undermine the basis of The New Covenant that has given us Life, made sense of reality, and vivified The Catholic Church since the start?
Theological spin on revelation is chicken feed compared with the blasphemy of a ‘numbers man’ attempt to alter the mountainous rock of God’s commandments.
For example: why do the numbers men dislike John 15:10 – “If you obey My commands you will remain in My love, just as I have observed My Father’s commands and remain in His love.” It seems that remaining in the love of God is the last thing on our pope’s mind.
Take care. Ever in the love of Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Babel is falling. We will not talk our way out of this disastrous, crumbling pontificate with Synodaling or more hoity-toity theologizing. As with Arianism, the second worldwide attempt to cancel Christ will fail. God will save His Church in some “surprising manner.” We are witnessing the terrible death throes of this corrupt generation, who insist that sin be loving.
The lazy will watch as Saints rebuild from the rubble. The Theotokos contemplated the Word made Flesh within her womb. How did St. Catherine of Siena or the Little Flower get their title of Doctor? St. Francis insisted that the Gospel be preached “without gloss.” God is love. Sin is not love. All are welcome to repent.
“God is love. Sin is not love. All are welcome to repent.” Amen! Amen! from one of “God’s little kids” to “God’s Fool”
Thank you for the kind words George. Comments do not help with “ecclesial loneliness.” At least Synodalers get to sit inside a palace and spout off to an audience before they go get a pasta carbonara.
For what it is worth, St. Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria, the Cappadocians, et al., solidified teaching and practice before the Arian barbarians destroyed much of the Roman Empire, leading to the Dark Ages.
We were sent Sts. Stein, Kolbe, John XXIII, Paul VI, Mother Teresa, John Paul II, (hopefully soon) BXVI, et al., before Synodaling and the Dumb Ages.
“Ecclesial Loneliness” I wish I knew you personally, I’d buy you a drink. Your comments are always an oasis of ecclesial sanity for these times. God Bless.
Would take you up on it, but I enjoy my hermitage and am not attracted to voluntary martyrdom (Donatists, right?;)
Alas, we can find virtual solace in the great work of the Dumb Ages: The Consolation of Emojis. 🍻
I agree with the wisdom of Germain Grisez that it is necessary engage and confront “liberal theology” with what I would call “faithful theology,” and that it is intellectually and morally lazy to instead just try to “ban” people from speaking and writing.
However, I must say that the essay fails to adequately describe the failures of the post-Vatican II Church authorities in responding to the so-called “liberal theology.”
Let’s stipulate, per Germain Grisez and Mr. Chapp, that Church authorities, including Popes, before the Second Vatican Council, failed to adequately exercise their authority, in other words, failed to their job, by thinking that all they need they to do is ban books and silence people writing and teaching what Mr. Chapp has labeled “liberal theology.” That’s one way that authorities can fail to do their job.
It is evident that Post-Vatican II authorities, certainly including Popes Paul VI and JP2, failed to do their job by failing to prevent apostates from gaining teaching authority, and instead, they failed the Church by GIVING TEACHING AUTHORITY TO APOSTATES, and this they did in probably numerous cases, because we can with a modicum of effort, and candor, find and state that they gave teaching authority to Walter Kasper, who is an apostate, who published his apostasy in 1974, and was, despite his apostasy, elevated to Bishop, and then to Cardinal.
In these pages here at CWR, early in the Francis pontificate, a series if essays appeared trying to argue against the push by Cardinal Kasper to change Church teaching about divorce and remarriage. In those essays, at least one “traditionally-minded” theologian said it was very difficult to resolve the argument with Kasper, because Kasper’s words were ambiguous and thus hard to overcome.
I wanted to see what they meant about Kasper, so I bought a copy of Kasper’s book “Jesus the Christ” (published 1974, before he was elevated to Bishop and later Cardinal). Now, Kasper’s book is not necessarily fun reading, and it does abound in what might be called “liberal” pieties and platitudes, but it does outright proclaim Kasper’s disbeliefs in the miracle accounts of Jesus in the Gospels, and Kasper’s disbelief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. No one can dispute that he has publicly asserted his disbeliefs.
Now I ask readers et al to answer this question: is the problem we are dealing with in the case of Kasper a problem of apostasy, and of granting teaching authority to an apostate, or is it not?
Because if it’s apostasy, then those who claim to be faithful to the authority of scripture and tradition ought to call it apostasy. Because if you don’t understand your opponents, or refuse to engage them on the ground they stand, you can not overcome their arguments.
The essay asserts that the problem being confronted is “liberal theology.”
But that’s not, it seems, coming to grips with the reality we are confronting.
Fr. Robert Imbelli has alluded to the “widespread” and “quite intentional” apostasy in the Catholic Church. It is very uncomfortable, we all might admit, that apostates have been given teaching authority as Bishops and Cardinals. But that is the stark reality.
I don’t believe Jesus made any mistakes, and I reject men like Kasper who teach that the New Testament is stocked with what he calls “mythology” (parroting the “liberal Protestant theology” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries).
But I do believe that post-Vatican II Popes failed to do their minimum duty to condemn public apostasy by clerics such as Kasper, and doubly failed Jesus and his Church by giving apostolic teaching authority to men like Kasper, many, many men, who were, and now are, known to be apostates.
So the problem is not one of competition between two or more legitimate “theologies.” The problem is bedrock, it is faith in Jesus and the truth of the Gospels.
Mr. Chris,
BINGO!! You get the gold star!! And, Mr. Chapp, erudite man that you are, and humbly sincere, you failed in your essay to convey what Mr. Chris succinctly identifies as the basic problem. When at the end of 40 days in the desert, our Lord and Savior was tempted three times by Satan. And to each temptation, our Lord denied the Original Apostate any legitimacy whatsoever.
What Mr. Chris says is spot on. These so called men who wear are merely “sheep in wolves clothing” and what is incredible is that they have been given, no rewarded, for their apostacy over the last century. Yes, there is is indeed “smoke of Satan” in the heart of Church. THAT’s A CLEAR FACT TO ALL, and I’m amazed that men of such learned thinking like Mr. Chapp, and other men of his stature, fail to see this insidious cancer within the Church Hierarchy.
I agree, Chris. Additionally, fervent and faithful orthodox Catholics have powerful weapons to employ against onslaughts by Christ’s enemies. These are more efficacious than buckles on rollercoaster safety belts. We surely may muster up and do more than buy a ticket to watch Church leaders master their unjust attempts to nullify Christ’s church by replacing Him with letters of their godless alphabet or with idols of infertility spray-painted to gleam and glitter. Their hoped-for consummation is far from a fait accompli. We’ve heard in prophecy and trust in our hearts that Jesus and we shall have victory. Their gods are sterile and yet filthy and emit an abhorrent smell.
St. Paul has informed us: 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world’s darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore take up the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you will be able to stand your ground, and having done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people. 19 Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, (Ephesians 6:12ff)
Pray for us, St. Paul.
Dear ‘Chris in Maryland’, dear JCALAS, & dear ‘meiron’.
Your comments have cheered me SO much. It’s encouraging to read that other Catholics profess unshakeable faith in the miracles and Resurrection of our LORD Jesus Christ. PF et al., NB.
My long experience is that we who confidently believe this of Christ are graced with His miracles in our own lives. To those who have shall be given. (See Catholic video: ‘Miracle at Juarez’).
In this otherwise very erudite & persuasive article by beloved Professor Larry Chapp there seems to be a zone of opacity regarding who Jesus Christ eternally is, the cosmic dimension of His authority (Creator of The Big Bang & Quantum Mechanics, Author of Life, Sustainer of Truth, Ultimate Judge, The Beginning & The End of it all) and His divine capacity as the Only Begotten Son of Almighty God, Our One & Only Teacher, Waymaker, Miracle Worker, Covenant Keeper, our uniquely Saving, Atoning Redeemer & Anointer with The Holy Spirit; the only truly Guiding Light amidst the confusing deceits & iniquities of this world (including amidst the darkness of today’s clerical apostacies & immoralities).
Larry has a good heart & circulates many pertinent observations, but he needs to watch for hemorrhaging thro lack of professed faith in our King’s incomparable identity. Please see Hebrews 4:1-2
Determined to hear, obey, love, & follow the Living Christ; with blessings from marty
Very well said indeed Dr Rice. And same to Chris, JCALAS and Meiron
Agreed! Most helpful. Thanks. God’s peace.
This is the standard, lame SSPX style response to everything: “Blame Vatican II for everything”. Notice how weak the argument is: Kasper, apparently, destroyed everything. But of course he did not. Kasper was allowed to advance because he was capable of stimulating thought, and of course JP II and Benedict believed that his thought would bring strong counter arguments out into the open – They viewed Kasper as an irritant that would produce the pearl. In their view, which is Grisez’s view, it was important to allow these people to speak and then DEFEAT them with better arguments.
But of course, the standard SSPX style argument is a simple one: “Things went wrong, we want to blame someone. It does not matter if we blame the correct person, someone must be blamed. Because JP II excommunicated our cult leader, Lefebvre, we will smear him and blame him and the “Vatican II popes” for everything. Normal people jut want to know who to blame, so we will create a fake story to tell them”
This is a weak, childish and immature complaint.
Chapp is right: Full blown secularism was unleashed on the world at the same time as Vatican II. Because governments favored secularism, because Television and the media favored secularism, it succeeded wildly. Our problems are not at all due to theology, or the type of mass. Secularism was a hurricane that destroyed everything in its path. Now we have to pick up the pieces. And begin to use the internet to get out the message.
samton909:
It seems, by your reference to Kasper, that you are directing your comment to me, though you didn’t reply directly to me, so I will reply to you.
My comment, in your assessment, is simply to be dismissed as “weak, lame, childish and immature” and also somehow to be labelled as some sort of “SSPX” ideology.
I’m sure that all reasonable man and women would agree, that if one’s own counter-arguments are in fact “strong and mature,” such arguments need not be laced with gratuitous insults against someone you are disagreeing with.
But rather than begin with a detour into your reliance on insults, I will first address matters of fact, and whether you are dealing with facts, and even failing to understand what I am saying.
So let’s begin where you started, and see whether you are on the mark, and if so, making a persuasive counter-argument.
1. Your Point #1 – you have suggested that I am arguing, and I quote, “Blame Vatican II for everything.” Yet, I made no comment whatsoever about the merits of Vatican II. I was responding to Mr. Chapp’s critique of pre-Vatican II Popes, which is a frame of reference given by Mr. Chapp, and naturally, I am responding in kind using the V2 framework in the manner he used it, as a milestone event around which to criticize Popes “before-and-after” V2. As an aside (and it is completely beside the point), I certainly don’t dismiss the 2nd Vatican Council. Having read some portions of it completely, especially Sacrosanctum Consilium and Dei Verbum and Nostra Aetete, and others in part, such as Gaudium et Spes, I find the documents a mixture of some very good and some very poor and ambiguous statements. And I hold V2 in the same esteem that Pope Benedict XVI did, it is a Church Council, nothing less, and nothing more, and definitely not a “super dogma,” as B16 warned against, but a Council to be weighed with other Councils, and to be fairly criticized when it is itself weak, as for example, Tracey Rowland criticizes some of the weak platitudes of Guadium et Spes, and others criticize what many have called the “deliberate ambiguities” of, say, Sacrosanctum Consilium. But my regard for V2 is beside the point. What is important is that you began with a misfire, and were complaining about something that was not germane.
2. Your Point #2 – It is weak-minded for anyone to find fault in post-Vatican 2 Popes for giving the teaching office of Bishop to men like Kasper (who apparently you concede is an apostate), and such weak-minded people somehow fail to appreciate the shrewdness of the post-Vatican 2 “strategy” of “allowing (apostates?) Kasper to advance because he was capable of stimulating thought, and of course JP II and Benedict believed that his thought would bring strong counter arguments out into the open… [and per Grisez] …to allow these people to speak and then DEFEAT them with better arguments.” As to appreciating what you claim are assert to know to be a post-Vatican-2 “papal strategy,” it does seem a rather grave blunder to think oneself wise in GIVING TEACHING AUTHORITY (making a man a bishop) TO A KNOWN APOSTATE, because many everyday people (and per opinion polls apparently most people), can fail to know and discern how brilliant that strategy is, and may instead understandably conclude that the Church leadership considers such publicly known apostasy to be a legitimate expression of the faith. Indeed, if you are so vexxed about avoiding “lame reasoning,” it’s not a winning argument to suggest that when one wants to confront error and apostasy, step 1 is to first grant the apostate(s) the high ground of a Bishop’s authority to teach, as if they will not use their teaching office to magnify and spread their apostasy, when they have the power of a teaching office.
And finally, as to your reliance on insults, I am an ordinary parishioner in a Novus Ordo parish, and not part of the SSPX. I simply hold that criticizing Popes, among others, is neither forbidden, nor unfaithful. I sense that your response was prompted by emotion, because I touched a topic of sensitivity to you, and I suppose that, from your previous posts, because I have dared to say that Pope John Paul II made a big mistake, to your mind, it is “verboten” to ever say anything critical of Pope John Paul II. And yet, conversely, you are OK with Mr. Chapp criticizing pre-Vatican II Popes. Well, I do admit that I think it is fair game to criticize any Pope, if he has done something wrong, regardless of whether he preceded or followed V2. And while I consider JP2 to be a holy and fatherly Pope, I think you have the harder case to make insisting that Paul VI and JP2 were executing a successful grand strategy by elevating apostates to teaching authority as bishops, and to power brokers as Cardinals.
And at that, I will leave it to others to judge whether or not one of us has managed to hit send after writing “lame, weak, childish and immature” comments.
Replying to Samton909: “Lame…response” “Things went wrong, we want to blame someone.” Are you suggesting that when something goes drastically wrong, no personal blame can be assigned? just impersonal “forces”, like Hurricanes? The lame response is yours:”Kasper…allowed to advance because… capable of stimulating thought”…”the irritant that would produce the pearl” “allow these people to speak and then DEFEAT them with better arguments” Do you really suppose that Kasper – as arrogant as he was – would have crawled off into a corner and shut up had he not been promoted? Fat chance! Many secular European institutions would have readily embraced a brash smooth-talking anti-Catholic renegade. Too bad John-Paul and Grisez thought they had to embrace him to be “stimulated by his thought”. I’m not about to pretend that John-Paul, Grisez, and Benedict were failures: but neither can I pretend they made no mistakes. By the way, why not Lefebvre “as the irritant that would produce the pearl”? Could it be that Grisez and John-Paul found Kasper less irritating?
“secularism was a hurricane that destroyed everything in its path.”
Having witnessed Hurricanes, and also seen television footage of them, I can assure you that there are buildings that survive Hurricanes with minimal damage. But the building must be well designed. The Church’s design was obviously more than adequate, but not so the Church’s preparedness. John XXIII and many of the Council fathers (as well as many ordinary Catholics (myself, as 20 year old, included) were full of unbounded optimism that the world was ready and eager to receive the liberating message of the Gospel. This was incredible foolishness (especially for senior leaders within the Church): laymen like Tolkien, Chesterton, and C.S.Lewis, not to mention numerous officials within the Church, well understood where the “world” was headed. But foolish optimism prevented the Council from making the necessary preparations should the “world” prove unreceptive – or worse – hostile. On to your next dubious assertion: “Our problems are not at all due to theology, or the type of mass.” Had you simply said “problems not all due to…” there would have been no issue. But you claim that:”our problems are not AT ALL due to theology or the type of Mass”. I’ll dispense with the “due to theology” in order to focus on the train wreck that the acknowledged (by Paul VI) freemason, Annibale Bugnini, created when he (almost single-handedly) “renewed” the prayers of the Mass. (And every other aspect of Liturgy in the Church – which cannot be addressed here due to space limitations). Please note that I attend a novus ordo parish – not a TLM parish – and that I am neither claiming nor implying that the Novus Ordo is invalid: only that the chain-saw with which Bugnini assaulted the prayers of the Mass greatly reduced the catechesis which could have been achieved by providing the laity with the proper study tools. But this is not all (and only a book – or more likely – a series of books could adequately deal with this). The most clever way of lying is to tell the truth, but then lie about what it means. This is exactly what Bugnini has done at the Consecration. The words of the Consecration were not changed. But immediately following the Consecration, the priest is provided with one of the many “option plays” in the Novus Ordo. To forestall any criticism, each of the three options is drawn from scripture. The priest says:”let us acclaim the Mystery of Faith” after which the people are led in acclaiming. Here is the LIE: not one of these “options” declares what the “Mystery of Faith” IS! Oh George your so numb, we’re being called to acclaim, not proclaim! Exactly. So why are we NOT called upon to PROCLAIM? Because – like in so many other prayers of the Novus Ordo – watering down the faith seems to be Bugnini’s goal. In the TLM, there is no acclamation after the Consecration, but perhaps this insertion could have produced good fruit had it been WORDED DIFFERENTLY! “Let us PROCLAIM the Mystery of Faith” response: Lord Jesus Christ we believe it is truly You, in Your Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, who have come down upon the altar, in this moment, to give yourself to us in Holy Communion. Amen! Had a prayer similar to this been recited at every Novus Ordo Nass since 1969, can we really think that only 30% of today’s Catholics would believe in the “Real Presence”? There is much more to say, but this is already too long.
Samton99:
I am replying directly to you, as your comment is directed at me.
To begin, but not take a detour, readers might observe that if you had a more confident response to make, resting on facts and showing a real understanding of comments you criticize, a more confident response would be strong enough on its merits that it wouldn’t rely on recourse to insulting those you disagree with. But…perhaps hope springs eternal.
Setting aside your instinct for insults, I will address the 2 main points you contend, and ask whether your grasp of the discussion is “on point,” or your counter-arguments are persuasive.
1. Your first point mistakenly asserts that I (and others) are “blaming everything on Vatican II. No one said anything at all in criticism of Vatican II. Mr. Chapp’s essay criticizes Popes before Vatican II for failing in their teaching duty to engage the ideology of “liberal theology.” As all can see, I agreed with him. My comment extended the critique, and I think quite fairly, that there were in contrast failures of governance by post-Vatican II Popes. Clearly, your first point is a complete misfire, and your own words show that you were mistaken about what is at issue. It is not Vatican II. (As an aside, Vatican II is what it is, a Council among other councils, and to be taken as such, and as B16 said, it is not a super-dogma, and as Tracey Rowland and others have noted here and at other sites, it has its own problems).
2. Your second assertion is a narrative one, that it is somehow weak-minded if people fail to see what you apparently believe is a brilliant strategy of granting of episcopal teaching authority to apostates. Your reasoning is that that apostates are brought out into the open by making them Bishops and Cardinals, and then vanquished on the battlefield of ideas. Reasonable observers might note that when a man publishes books stocked with apostasy, they are already out in the open, and while it is good and necessary to fight them on the battlefield of ideas, it is an overwrought argument that to contend with such opponents, it is prudent to first give them the high ground of a Bishop’s teaching authority. I doubt that Germain Grisez or Mr. Chapp would endorse that strategy.
To sum up, you began by arguing about a phantom that was not even at issue, and you conclude by arguing that it’s a smart move to give teaching authority to apostates, because that’s how you best defeat their ideas. I would submit that the very fact that Mr. Chapp has written his essay is evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps if you stepped out of the over-simplified (and impoverished) dynamics of thinking that everything can be boiled down to a contest between the SSPX vs anti-SSPX, which is in itself what some observers might call a manifestation of “lame thinking.” Then you might actually see and understand the concerns and criticisms people are raising, and try to make a persuasive argument of your own views, instead of insisting that any criticism whatsoever of John Paul II is verboten. Because if it’s not “childish and immature” to criticize pre-Vatican II popes, then perhaps one might also conclude, conversely, that it could be “childish and immature” to demand that there be no criticism of Pope John Paul II, a holy and fatherly Pope, yes, but a man, just the same as Peter, who, as the Holy Spirit saw fit to tell us, was publicly rebuked by Paul.
So here’s to good arguments, and no longer relying in the crutch of insulting people with whom we disagree.
NOTE:THIS WAS TAKEN DOWN A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. It has been greatly modified
replying to Samton909: “Lame…response” “Things went wrong, we want to blame someone.” Are you suggesting that when something goes drastically wrong, no personal blame can be assigned? just impersonal “forces”, like Hurricanes? “Kasper…allowed to advance because… capable of stimulating thought”…”the irritant that would produce the pearl” “allow these people to speak and then DEFEAT them with better arguments” Do you really suppose that Kasper – as arrogant as he was – would have crawled off into a corner and shut up if he hadn’t been promoted? Fat chance! Many secular European institutions would have embraced a brash smooth-talking anti-Catholic renegade. Too bad John-Paul and Grisez thought they had to embrace him to be “stimulated by his thought”. I’m not about to pretend that John-Paul, Grisez, and Benedict were failures: but neither can I pretend they made no mistakes. By the way, why not Lefebvre “as the irritant that would produce the pearl”? Could it be that Grisez and John-Paul found Kasper less irritating? “secularism was a hurricane that destroyed everything in its path.” Having witnessed Hurricanes, and also seen television footage of them, I can assure you that there are buildings that survive Hurricanes with minimal damage. But the building must be well designed. The Church’s “design” was obviously more than adequate, but not so the Church’s preparedness. John XXIII and many of the Council fathers (as well as many ordinary Catholics (myself, as 20 year old, included) were full of unbounded optimism that the world was ready and eager to receive the liberating message of the Gospel. This was imprudent thinking (especially for senior leaders within the Church): laymen like Tolkien, Chesterton, and C.S.Lewis, not to mention numerous officials within the Church, had well understood where the “world” was headed. But unwarranted optimism prevented the Council from making the necessary preparations should the “world” prove unreceptive – or worse – hostile. On to your next dubious assertion: “Our problems are not at all due to theology, or the type of mass.” Had you simply said “problems not all due to…” there would have been no issue. But you claim that:”our problems are not AT ALL due to theology or the type of Mass”. I’ll focus only on the Mass (and only on the most crucial part of the Mass.) Please note that I attend a Novus Ordo parish – not a TLM parish – and that I am neither claiming nor implying that the Novus Ordo is invalid. Annibale Bugnini (the man tasked by Pope Paul VI to lead the “renewal” of the Liturgy and then later exiled by Paul because of conclusive evidence that he was a Freemason) suggested inserting, after the Consecration, an “acclamation” as used in some eastern liturgies. In the Eastern Liturgies, the acclamation does not change. The Novus Ordo provides three options (to be chosen by the priest or the choir) 1)We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection, until you come again.
2)When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again.
3)Save us, Saviour of the world, for by your Cross and Resurrection you have set us free. There are several issues here whose seriousness should have been obvious to Bugnini because of his role as a liturgist: a) Roman Catholics, being completely unfamiliar with a post-Consecration acclamation, did not properly understand the purpose of it. b) the provision of three options further muddies the water for the average parishioner. c) unlike the people attending Eastern Liturgies, who were long accustomed to the acclamation and how it flowed from their belief in the Real Presence of Christ, Roman Catholic parishioners were confronted with with a situation that was puzzling because (unlike in the East where the acclamation by the people followed immediately upon the words of Consecration) in the revised Roman rite the “invitation”: Let us acclaim the Mystery of Faith precedes the words of acclamation. This suggests that the words of the acclamation express the Mystery of Faith. These are not fancifully concocted issues. I was there – I saw this happen. Even though I had spent 3 years in a high school seminary, and should have been better prepared to understand, I was just as unsure as the average parishioner of what this all meant. In English-speaking countries, the situation was even worse because for about 20 years, there was a fourth option in use inserted by the English translators , which they labeled as option 1): “Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again.” Furthermore the translators used the word “proclaim” What’s the big deal you might say. Think about it. Immediately after the Consecration, the priest chants: “Let us PROCLAIM the Mystery of Faith” the people respond: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. What’s wrong with that? You say. I’ll let Paul VI answer. After several years of the Novus Ordo, He issued the encyclical: Mysterium Fidei (The Mystery of Faith) in which he pleaded with Catholics to remember that, in the Catholic Church, the expression “The Mystery of Faith” refers to one thing, and one thing alone: the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist! There are many mysteries in the Catholic Faith, but Paul VI was reminding us that only one of these is referred to as THE Mystery of Faith. What if things had been worded differently? For example: “Let us PROCLAIM the Mystery of Faith” response: “Lord Jesus Christ we believe it is truly You, in Your Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, who have come down upon the altar, in this moment, to give yourself to us in Holy Communion. Amen!” Had a prayer similar to this been recited at every Novus Ordo Mass since 1969, can we really think that only 30% of today’s Catholics would believe in the “Real Presence”? I’ve only mentioned one significant point. Which prayers are prayed does have an impact.
Good observation about apostates in high places. But they’ve been all over the Church because the cancer has spread everywhere. Low level assistant professors are corrupting young Catholic minds too. Parish priests give insipid homilies. Why? Because the problem is more basic. We are sinners, and sinners love to be lied to. Even among those of us who strive to be more loyal are at fault and are prone to overcomplexify the problem. How often do we see articles about the “crisis of non-existent confession lines”?
We all know Catholics who are as stubborn about refusing to reconsider the wisdom of Humanae Vitae today as they were in 1968 despite the undeniable destruction of the sex revolution. They would rather be tied to the rack than admit they were wrong. The ecclesial culture is a culture of sin denial, and you don’t get a Church that denies its very purpose of existence, to save souls from sin, unless you work very hard to create a rival culture that makes it easier to deny the reality of sin.
A very good analysis. However, Jesus also said “without me you can do nothing.” That means that just emphasizing the philosophical and theological dimensions will fail to solve this problem if there is not a deep prayer life in the Church. If people are not truly submissive to the Spirit, they will conjure up and cling to anything that appeals to them and call it the truth and fail to recognize they are abusing rather than using their intellect. The theologians need our prayers and should themselves be prayerful as well. This is, of course, the month of the holy rosary.
I can’t speak for people in other countries, but I think I can speak for Americans since I am one and have been for 66 years. This kind of discussion is way beyond the intellectual capacities of most Americans, including me.
I have a B.S. (Biology/Medical Technology) and worked in a hospital lab for 41 years, and I also consider “reading” as my main leisure time pursuit–along with watching TV, and I’m not talking PBS! I watch football and HGTV and the news. I wish I could say that I have any interest whatsoever in “philosophy” and “theology”, but I don’t. I took a philosophy class in college and had no clue what the prof was talking about–but I got an “A” in the class anyway!
I think most Americans, including Catholic Americans, are like me, and I’m betting a quarter that they would find the above article way beyond their brain power! And although many Catholics love to read, most of us don’t have the attention span to “study” a book. We want to read something that will help us figure out how to get along with our co-workers, or stop overeating, or raise our children well, or prepare for a happy death. Or more than likely, we just want to read really good stories–romance, mysteries, adventures, discoveries, talking dinosaurs that help people, etc.!
What we’re looking for in “church” is a real, daily, constant relationship with Jesus Christ, friendships with other Christians, and good ways for us to personally honor, love, and serve Jesus and our fellow human beings in our neighborhood and around the world; e.g., opportunities to get involved with our church and community life.
We are happy to leave the deep theological issues in the hands of the clergy, professors, and philosophers. And yes, with this “simple” approach to our religion, we are definitely easy prey for “liberal” priests, popular speakers and writers with a liberal agenda, and musicians and other artists (e.g., filmmakers) who lean towards liberalism and the pleasures of this world.
But we also have the Holy Spirit Who will guide us into all truth if we trust Him.
I think that the best way to protect Catholics from heresy is for our bishops, priests and lay teachers/writers, especially at the local level, to preach and teach the Basic Truths of Holy Mother Church and make SURE that ALL Catholics have this foundation from the time they are young toddlers until they are “old toddlers.” I also think that we need to be humble and honest and admit to each other and to our children that we mess things up and that we are sorry, and we hope they can forgive us even as God forgives us when we do something wrong.
Mrs. Whitlock, You are certainly correct. I am the type that studies theology and things as you describe but I have been Catholic for about 15 years and find that the vast majority of Catholics are like you. Very few have the time or inclination for the kind of study that I do and that is actually great. If too many do this that’s where the theological wrangling starts and stupid arguments about nothings. Please keep being you. I know there are people who believe that not focusing on study study study all the time means you are not faithful but that is not so. It’s the day to day actions, such as the things that deacons in the olden days did, that is where the rubber meets the road. God bless you.
Mrs. Winlock,
And, as another who is not the product of a formal Catholic education, I pause at your central concern: the “Basic Truths of Holy Mother Church.”
It was/is Jesus Christ, Himself, who in teaching us how to pray, begins with “Our Father who art in Heaven…” What we suffer from today is first a failure of religious imagination. A failure to see the ‘otherness” (as well as the closeness) of “Our Father” and of “in Heaven.”
Instead, we settle for what theologians would call “monism,” the unquestioning brain-stem impression (!) that God is surely the highest level of creation, but not really the absolutely transcendent Creator as “Other.”
About the historical, concrete and startling (!) fact of the Incarnation, then, is Mary is the only one who REALLY gets it: “fiat”?
The Synodal “process” by comparison, seems more of an exercise of holding hands in the dark, while calling for ersatz hints from an otherwise inscrutable Holy Spirit. A Holy Spirit who, instead, indwells the institutional/evangelical Catholic Church from the beginning, ever since the concrete event of Pentecost. (For the ascendant tribe of clericalist, another so-called “abstract” and horrifying doctrine from the “rigid” and out-of-date Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.).
Going through the catechism a time or two and even a sporadic practice of traditional prayer (hours, psalms or rosary) is enough theology to grasp “deep theological issues,” and to discern and sift the clashing voices. No need for a Ph.D. (though their knowledge of the history and players can be helpful). All is well unless catechism, prayer, scripture are also set aside as asking too much of our attention span.
You are 100 percent correct. Christianity has never been drive by deep theological writings. The rather simple parables, stories, and example of Jesus are all we really need. Sure, theologians will be necessary at some point, but theology is NOT how the faith spreads and is reinforced. Christianity has profoundly simple lessons on everyday life that are easily absorbed. The trouble today is that government schools have purposely decided to de-Christianize as much as possible, turning out anti Christians. The media reinforces this, and Christianity as a lifestyle is mocked, reviled and held up as an obstacle to all that is good. This is what the church should be fighting.
Every kid who grew up in the 1990’s to now, has been told that churches are for idiots and weirdos. Look at “The Simpson’s” portrayal of Christians. Flanders, the idiot Christian. The droning, content free pastor of the church. Now we are going down the toilet and some people are waking up to the fact that religion is a necessity, not a antique artifact.
This was a better “Chapp” article than the previous, in my view. It moves in the right direction. Of course, it is true that “good theological arguments” are not enough. Pope Francis gets this, and it was evident right from the beginning of his pontificate. Our experience is very limited, and thus so too our “perspective”, which is why dialogue is so important. Hence, the Synod. As Francis so often said, we need to become a more “listening” Church, rather than an exclusively top-down/clerical/”we got all the answers”/lecture-mode Church that we’ve had to endure for centuries.
I have doubts about the label “liberal theology”, just as I know there is something wrong with the label “conservative theology”. It’s not precise enough, and its inadequacy is evident when you begin to take a closer look at thinkers subsumed under that label–whichever one it is.
Perspective is “information”, and unique experiences bring unique perspectives (information) that allow us–if we listen–to make distinctions and draw out implications that would otherwise go unnoticed. The need for black & white, yes or no answers might very well hide a fear of dialogue, growth, and change that amounts to genuine progress–rather than degeneration. Growth is always accompanied by pains. Every kid is afraid of it.
As a somewhat minor aside, the Church has never done itself any favors by its thoughtless choices of vocabulary. Anyone concerned with public opinion (and is not evangelism a form of courting public opinion) would not have declared war on “Modernism.” Most people think that progress is good and that modernism equals progress. It seems to set the Church up as the advocate of the past and the outdated.
Steveb:
I agree…your observation about choosing/using weak vocabulary is a fundamental failure in discourse.
Declaring oneself to be against “Modernism” (or as another example “Progressivism”), is a fundamental mistake, because it allows those you are arguing with to frame the debate, allowing them to participate as both referee and contestant.
This is a fundamental mistake, like the old saying “bringing s knife to a gun fight.”
Great point.
A fine article with much insight. Do you have sources to recommend for understanding Ressourcement theology? How does the catechism fit into this discussion?
I’m sure Dr. Chapp has some suggestions, but here is a good essay (full disclosure: by one of my former professors) on the topic: “Ressourcement Theology, Aggiornamento,and the Hermeneutics of Tradition”.
The second question is an involved one, but suffice to say that the Vatican II documents reflect many aspects of Ressourcement theology, including a deep reliance on Scripture and patristics, as well as the essential theme of “communio” (which in tern reflects the Ressourcement focus on the Trinity). And the CCC flows from all of that.
De Lubac’s Drama of Atheist Humanism, though not a summary of Ressourcement, exemplifies the approach Chapp advises here (and that Danielou mentions in the link Olson provides). That is: take or sift all that is good in the present zeitgeist, then show how the gospel includes but surpasses it. De Lubac’s reading of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky is a classic case. Dostoevsky has all that is good in Nietzsche, plus a lot more, and minus the worst defects. This takes more work, more heart and soul, than a simple polemical takedown of Nietzsche or, in another context, the dropping of ecclesial hammers on errant theologians and clerics. When procedural shortcuts are your first resort, you are only feeding the beast, becoming its prey, getting lazy. Chapp is correct that there are “millions” (though still a minority) hungering for the gospel, or at least for something better than the zeitgeist. Catholics can satisfy that hunger, if they put in the work.
Thanks to Carol Olsen and Robert Hornick for helpful replies to my questions.
If you want a beginner’s guide and tour through modern theological history, written for the average person, try George Weigel’s “The Irony of Modern Catholic History”.
He reviews all the various theological trends in the last 100 years or so.
Bravo, Dr. Chapp. Well said. As you mention, doctrine does develop. However, too many theologians and members of the Episcopate replace “develop” with the word “change”. By develop, we should mean attaining a deeper level of understanding vis-à-vis the polyvalent nature of Truth contained in Scripture — but without changing Truth. No matter how many attempts are made, **change** does not equate with a proper understanding of the polyvalence of Scripture.
The above points to a significant departure from that which many participants in the Synod are trying to accomplish. The many layers of interpretation they wish to introduce contradict so many of the other layers of understanding that lead to an accurate knowledge of Truth. For example, the Trinity is infinite in Essence. We can never fully exhaust our attainment of all the levels of Truth within it. But its Truth can never change.
[quote] The following is an essential note regarding proper methods to be followed when interpreting Scripture: According to the Pontifical Bible Commission’s booklet, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, the shortcomings inherent in the Historical — Critical method of interpreting Scripture require that “each biblical text [must be interpreted] in the light of the [entire] Canon of the Scriptures … Each individual book only becomes biblical in the light of the Canon as a whole.[end quote]
[Pontifical Bible Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, (Pauline Books & Media, 1993), pp 52-53.]
The only way liberal Synod attendees can make their case is to cherry-pick Scripture, as do many Protestants. This method is the same approach they use to “pick” which junk science studies (although I’m not sure they realize the truth of those studies) they wish to cite to support their heterodox views.
No amount of NEW Pastoral care proceeding from the Synod can be sacramentally efficacious if it is delivered at the hands of Untruth! Unfortunately, this is precisely what is being attempted through the efforts of many attending this Synod.
Was Humane Vitae or the Second Vatican Council (which had recently concluded) the source of the “crack” through which this “doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation” entered?
Science helps answer that question and understand the heterodox views of many Synod attendees. Pope Paul VI had a pretty good idea of the crack through which it entered. He gives us a hint in the same letter he writes about the smoke of Satan entering the Church:
[quote] The Church is no longer trusted. We trust the first pagan prophet we see who speaks to us in some newspaper, and we run behind him and ask him if he has the formula for true life. I repeat, doubt has entered our conscience. And it entered through the windows that should have been open to the light: SCIENCE (my emphasis). [Gelsomino Del Guercio, “What did Paul VI mean by saying “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church?”, Aleteia, https://aleteia.org/2018/07/06/what-did-paul-vi-mean-by-saying-the-smoke-of-satan-has-entered-the-church/ , 07/06/18].[end quote]
What does this mean? Atheistic Scientism is Satan-led. It is an enemy through which lies infect the members of the Mystical Body of Christ, Jesus’ Church. A great number within the Church (including Pope Francis vis-à-vis climate change and vaccines) have fallen for this agenda/biased science. In great part, junk/agenda science (combined with scriptural cherry-picking) is being used as the basis upon which to argue for doctrinal **change** — NOT doctrinal development.
Incidentally, I have seen some Traditionalist’s who have used deceptive editing in videos and writings in an attempt to equate Pope Paul VI’s words about the “smoke of Satan” with the Second Vatican Council. A **shameful** deception.
Fight smarter, not harder! See the Church as the mission field. A Catholic parish is that field to an extent you might not find in an Eastern Orthodox parish. Troubling, but it’s an opportunity too. The EO already went through the marginalization Ratzinger foretold for Catholics, and had no need to ‘rediscover’ a Christological hermeneutic a la V2 and Ressourcement. The EO are serious about catechesis and lay formation; they know tradition, though the Internet to some extent succeeds in poisoning their well too. There were advantages to cutting off doctrinal development after the first thousand years! Still, the Orthodox suffer here and there from a kind of stagnation. Harder for a faithful Catholic to stagnate when the challenge to tradition is right there in your face, coming from both lay and clergy.
As always, I looked forward to reading an article by Larry Chapp. His mention of Grisez reminded me that I have one of his books (with co-writer Russell Shaw) on moral theology.
I cannot agree however with the idea that a theologian who dissents from firm Catholic teaching should just be left with other theologians to correct him. No institution can last when it has internal members working to undermine the very principles of that institution. The idea that Curran should not have been disciplined I find beyond belief. In modern times he probably did more to undermine the teachings of the Church than anyone I can think of. He, and the hundreds of other theologians that he assembled, established as a principle that you can dissent from any authentic teaching of the Church. The catechism states that artificial contraception is a serious intrinsic moral evil. Surveys have shown that a majority of Catholic couples of childbearing age practice, or have practiced artificial contraception. I believe that he, and other theologians with him, bear much of the responsibility for this, and the vast majority suffered no discipline for this at all.
Bishops threefold duty is to teach, to rule/govern, and to sanctify. They have not only failed in many cases to govern (which includes disciplining) but now are dissenting in their own teaching. Look at the Germans giving same sex blessings with no consequences, Some American bishops have called for changing the Church’s teaching on the immorality of homosexual acts, and yesterday I read about a Belgian bishop saying he favors euthanasia for the elderly. When there is no disciplinary action against those who teach such things, the typical Catholic can easily get the idea that it must be OK.
Catholic academic give and take is one thing, but we cannot ignore the effects of false teaching on the everyday Catholic.
Yes, I agree, Curran should have been removed from his Catholic U. post far quicker than he was. And though everyone considers Paul VI a hero for H.V., he was no hero when he overruled the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington and re-instated the priests whom the latter had suspended for public dissent to Humanae Vitae. If there was a point that the post Vatican II war for theological predominance was lost, it was with that papal action.
1. If there is a poisonous snake in your house, you must excommunicate it very promptly, and immediately seal up all the holes that allowed this killer to get in your house in the first place, and remain vigilant in keeping the holes plugged up and in finding and eliminating any snakes that get inside.
2. This is just commmon sense. Any attempt to understand, reason with, or live in peace with snakes is just plain nuts.
3. All plans and proposals to the contrary are so irresponsible that even to debate them is nuts, and even evil, since it allows a ruthless, soulless, conscienceless, diabolical enemy to destroy or damage our children, and also adults who are more easily swayed by passions and temptations.
4. And yet, Pope John XXIII, in his opening address for the Vatican II Council, set the liberal tone that has dominated the Church ever since. Here are some key passages from that papal address:
“The Church in every age has opposed these errors and often has even condemned them and indeed with the greatest severity. But at the present time, the spouse of Christ prefers to use the MEDICINE OF MERCY rather than the WEAPONS OF SEVERITY; and, she thinks she meets today’s needs by EXPLAINING the validity of her doctrine more fully rather than by CONDEMNING. Not that there are no false doctrines, opinions, or dangers to be avoided and dispersed; but all these things so openly conflict with the right norms of honesty and have borne such lethal fruits that today people by themselves seem to begin to condemn them….”
“More and more they are coming to know that the dignity of the human person and his appropriate perfection are a matter of great importance and most difficult to achieve. What is especially important is that they have finally learned from experience that imposing external force on others, the power of weapons, and political domination are not at all sufficient for a happy solution of the most serious questions which trouble them.”
“In these circumstances, the Catholic Church, as she raises the torch of religious truth in this Ecumenical Council, wishes to show herself to be the most loving mother of all, kind, patient, and moved by mercy and goodness towards her separated children.”
5. People often say that the 16 documents issued by Vatican II do not teach things like the church blessing of gay unions, which Pope Francis recently gave his papal approval to, in his recent official answer to a “dubia” submitted by some conservative bishops.
6. Pope John XXIII’s opening address is as much a part of the official history and theology of Vatican II as are the 16 documents ultimately issued.
7. Conservative “originalists” assert that the U.S. Constitution must be interpreted in light of letters, essays, speeches and so on produced by the men who wrote the Constitution, in order for judges now to discern the real intent and meaning of the men who wrote the Constitution.
8. In the same way, the speeches, debates, factions, statements, interviews, interventions, etc., at the Vatican II Council ARE are part of that Council.
9. The Vatican II Council cannot be reduced to merely the text of the 16 documents.
10. I think every qualified Catholic theologian knows this. John Paul II and Benedict XVI knew it and said it, repeatedly.
11. And so, though I like and respect Dr. Chapp, and would love the chance to meet him and speak with him, for the reasons stated in this comment, I respectfully disagree strongly with many of the points of Dr. Chapp in this essay.
12. I hope Dr. Chapp will reconsider this liberal theological orientation, which I think he promotes, without realizing it..
This is for the most part, gravely in error in all respects.
1. You left out the counter balancind parts of John XXIII’s address where he says that the deposit of faith can never be changed, that the only thing we are talking about is the way the faith is communicated, etc.
2. No, originalists do NOT say that the speeches of men who drew up the Constitution constitute part of the text of the Constitution and must be considered when interpreting the constitution. For the most part, they argue the exact opposite – that only the text matters. It is true that occasionally, to prove a distinct point of what the historical context of a phrase may be, they might talk about those letters, writings etc. But only to prove a different point – not that the letters are somehow very important on their own.
samton909, Frank is not in error. In reference to John XXIII (whom I remember and idolized while attending a high school seminary), the section that Frank quotes is NOT counterbalanced, as you claim. John XXIII had (like most Catholics of the early 60’s) an unrealistically optimistic view of the near future. As a result, he was saying – in the section quoted by Frank – that the Church no longer had to be as vigilant about dangerous ideas because the people of the world were rejecting evil. Just a gentle nudge from Church would set everything straight. Yikes! The Pope certainly had no intention of changing Catholic teaching – which is what is dealt with in the section you refer to.
Pertaining to “originalist scholars”, Frank does not claim that the contemporary writings are part of the text. He correctly points out that originalists maintain that material written at the time the Constitution was being debated must be considered when trying to understand the meaning of the Constitution. You need to go back and check your sources.
Unfortunately, we’re not just talking about differences in theological argumentation of an academic nature. We’re also having to deal with the theology of morally bankrupt and perverse Churchmen and women. Let’s not assume that those with whom we disagree theologically are living morally upright lives. I happen to believe that certain theological ideas are advanced because they reflect the moral degeneracy of those advancing their “nouvelles idees” for purposes of self-justification. I’d be interested in knowing whether those espousing any theological propositions: a) have a Spiritual Director whom they see regularly and b) how often they frequent the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
In my experience there are just as many moral problems in the lives of conservative priests, bishops and lay theologians as there are with their liberal counterparts. And that sometimes their allegiance to a kind of strict orthodoxy is simply a front for a hidden life. I was a really, really good friend in the seminary back in the 80’s with a dude named Jim Jackson. He was super conservative and ended up becoming an FSSP priest and a trad. As you probably know since it has been in the news he was arrested a few years ago now on child porn charges and has plead guilty. His is just one case of a super conservative person having skeletons in the closet but there are many others.
Also, I think I made it quite clear that theological arguments alone will not suffice and that the perdurance of liberal Catholicism has more to do with culture than theology. Which is why we must build from below and appeal to that same culture. Authority is not going to cut it. We must build an attractive alternative. But that does mean we also need to live lives of moral integrity. The Father Jackson’s of the world destroy our credibility as traditional Catholics.
Larry, I never implied that traditionalists are without sin. I’ve seen too much to be that naive and, besides, my own conscience convicts me. What distintion I would make is that traditionalists don’t parade up the aisles proclaiming that sin is virtue and Christ’s redemptive act has been rendered irrelevant. A hallmark of the faithful Catholic in my book is that he is not the judge in his own case but submits himself to judgement to God in the person of a Spiritual Director and regular Confessor.
They don’t? I can’t tell you how many times I have seen some Traditionalists on Social Media being uncharitable toward those who express their love for the Mass in the vernacular. Just as an example, I have seen more than one Trad post laughing emojis in response to just such a post. I have witnessed how some people stop posting in a group because they are tired of always being told that their Mass is inferior/invalid. Whenever one makes the claim that one valid Mass is more efficacious than a Mass celebrated in a different Form, it fosters elitism. The priests themselves are teaching them this elitism . When E.F. priests REFUSE their bishop’s orders to concelebrate an N.O. Mass, their elitist actions speak louder than words. Even Fr. Chad Ripperger has commented about the growing problem of this Pharisaical attitude among the younger Mass attendees. Sadly, many adherents of the Extraordinary Form are unacceptably ignorant of the Church’s teaching concerning the economy of Grace, especially relative to the Mass. Who is to blame for that? The clergy (their spiritual fathers) who celebrate the E.F. There have been, I believe, seven Eucharistic miracles since Vatican II. Of those, at least four were confected at a Mass celebrated in the O.F. So anyone claiming the N.O. Mass is invalid (other than for lack of proper form or matter) is in need of better catechesis.
I’m glad that you don’t go up and down the aisle proclaiming that sin is virtue. However, a troublesome share of Trads go up and down the aisle proclaiming, in Pharisaical fashion, that my Mass is better than your Mass.
Dear Stephen Michael Leininger & dear Deacon Peitler,
The spirit within those Catholics, on both sides, who vaunt themselves & their liturgy over other Catholics is not The Holy Spirit of Christ.
Both factions need to examine themselves to find how it is they have lost the plot.
Also, those who spearhead the prideful claims, on both sides, may in fact be agents provocateurs, working for the enemy of Jesus. It happens.
Let’s be wisely discerning, peacemaking Christ-followers, not manipulable naïve suckers easily lured into sacrilegious belligerence.
Always following The Lamb; love & blessings from marty
Yes, to the belief that “…certain theological ideas are advanced because they reflect the moral degeneracy of those advancing their “nouvelles idees”…”
One theologian of renown (Cessario?, Pieper?, Aquinas, Augustine?) said something to the effect that the best theology comes from the theologian blessed not only by the science of reason but also by the charism of God’s love granted him in contemplative prayer. Since the object of theology is God, one without knowledge of God will spew blather some very bad theology.
Chapp himself, in the penultimate article to this, noted the basic sense that we cannot give what we don’t have.
A theologian without love cannot convey a God who IS love.
Well said by both Dr. Rice and Meiron.
An erudite description of the liberal theological saga and our challenge of the moment, to deter with “sanctity, prudence, and intelligence”. Chapp expectedly places sanctity first, because lack of sanctity is the root cause of liberal apostasy.
Rather than engage in all the should have been done remedies, easier to recognize after the fact, than when engaged in existential decision making – like the Apostle advises it’s best to look toward what lies ahead. Ideas will not win this battle. Our willingness to take on the weapons of spiritual warfare will better prepare us to respond with intelligence and prudence.
1. If more and more Catholics were to conclude and say that people such as Pope Francis and his fellow “pro-gay union blessing” promoters ARE NOT Catholics, that would indeed do great damage to the reputation and authority of the Church. That is, I assume, why Dr Chapp wrote the following in this essay:
“Pope Francis…is a Catholic, and not a heretic. And it is a waste of our time and energy to argue otherwise.”
“…we better cinch up our belts, eschew all lazy thinking about “the great apostasy” or sedevacantism or “Pope Francis is a heretic”, and realize that this is the reality of the Church we inhabit and get on with it.”
2. But, on the other hand, great damage to the reputation and authority of the Church ALREADY IS OCCURING as a result of Catholics generally believing and saying that Pope Francis and his fellow “pro-gay union blessing” promoters ARE Catholics.
3. This is a true “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. Right?
4. The only solution I can see is to ask: What would the true Jesus Christ, the Crucified One, the Holy One, the Good Shepherd, want us to do?
5. For the next 500 years, must we really, to quote Dr. Chapp, “realize that this is the reality of the Church we inhabit and get on with it”? Really? We are to accept 500 years more of sin-blessing synods of apostasy?
6. Exactly what faithful Catholic should do is debatable, but somehow, in some clear way, faithful Catholics must communicate that the decrees and documents issued by sin-blessing synods of apostasy are NOT expressions of the Catholic Faith, and in some way faithful Catholics must have NO COMMUNION with the people who are carrying out these sin-blessing synods of apostasy, as per the Scriptural mandate, “let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:17).
7. I personally somewhat like the idea of about 1 million faithful Catholics going on a peaceful, quiet pilgrimage to Rome and to the Vatican, over some weekend, and holding up signs that say things like “Sin cannot be blessed,” and maybe “Unrepentant heretics are not Catholics.” Such an event would establish a clear record in Church history that there was peaceful, principled, powerful resistance to the apostasy boiling over in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Excellent retort!
You write: “If more and more Catholics were to conclude and say that people such as Pope Francis and his fellow ‘pro-gay union blessing’ promoters ARE NOT Catholics, that would indeed do great damage to the reputation and authority of the Church.”
Well, they might still be a sort of member of the Church, but do they “love” it? Try this:
“It is an essential mark of the true Church that unlike all purely human institutions and communities she remains forever one and the same in the faith she guards. The identity of the Church of the Catacombs with the Church of the Nicaean Council, of the Church of the Tridentine with the Church of the Vatican Councils is a sign that She is a divine institution. A Church of ‘tomorrow’ that would replace a Church of ‘yesterday’ would be a contradiction of the very nature of the Church. He whose heart is more thrilled by the idea of a changing Church than by the glorious identity and stability of the Church has lost the ‘sensus supranaturalis’ and demonstrates that he no longer LOVES [caps added] the Church” (Dietrich von Hildebrand, “Trojan Horse in the City of God,” Franciscan [!] Herald Press, 1967).
The contortion in some grinning synodal minds is the proposition that to wildly “stretch the gray area” (Cardinal Grech) is still not a change in identity.
To which proposition we have the theologian Alice in Wonderland: “‘Well! I’ve often seen a cat without a grin,’ thought Alice ‘but a grin without a cat! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!’”
All seems too ivory tower for me. I suggest an intense focus on the Eucharist and Confession. Build a true belief in the True Presence, which no other religion has. People are beat up in their lives and from the culture. Confession will lift the burden, and Christ will help carry the weight.
I tend to agree that the faithful academics in the 20th century were somewhat late to the game when it came to defending against the deviant theology in the schools of French and German elites. I also agree that Grisez was one of the great teachers of his day. I am not so sanguine about Grisez’s or Chapp’s approach to the Left, however, that it can be sufficiently addressed with honest debate. A candid reading of the main currents philosophical and theological movements since Rousseau has been to blow up the Church, and to deprive children of the teachings of Our Lord . As a psychologist, and former academic, I am convinced that the academic Left, including communists and socialists that inhabited and continue to inhabit the halls of the academies, including the theologians, are not interested in debate, and they are not interested in the truth: for the weak-minded among them are interested in acceptance, and for the strong-willed, they are wholly interested in power. For generations, they have seduced their students with sophistries, and they lie to parents who have paid exorbitant tuitions only to discover that their children have been alienated from the familial and religious traditions. The Left has dominated the academies over the last century and has been quite bold, even in the face of official opposition from the Church. I suppose that Prof. Chapp can recall the 1967 “Land O Lakes Declaration”, which was an in-your-face declaration of revolt, signed by dozens of the most prominent catholic academics in North America, including Theodore Hesburgh and Theodore McCarrick (yes, that one). These men were powerful and supremely arrogant. They were not interested in thoughtful debate in the pursuit of the truth, rather their interests were in the unholy trinity of power, prestige, and lust.
A brilliant & logically persuading summary, dear Richard Cross.
Nicely extending all that beloved Larry gave us in his evocative article.
Well done indeed CWR in attracting articles and comments of this high quality & relevance. Praise God!
Richard, you are able to express yourself more calmly than I do. You describe eloquently what I have also seen
Where in my essay did you get that theological argument alone would be sufficient for combatting the perdurance of liberal Catholicism? Correct me if I am wrong, but do I not say explicitly that theology alone is not sufficient?? That we must also realize that much of the appeal of liberal Catholicism is cultural and that we must this time around not cede the media platforms to the liberals for controlling the narrative? My point about the necessity of theological arguments is that we cannot count on authority to simply “suppress” this stuff. Messy as it is we must argue, debate and develop theological tools. AND engage the culture.
All that said, I agree with all that your write. We are up against a hefty opponent who has had control of everything! I did not mean to come across as not liking your comment. I just wanted to be clear that I too do not think theological arguments alone are enough.
I agree 100% Mr. Cross. The left are completely uninterested in debate, including those in the left now in supreme power in the Catholic Church, and they play only to preserve their positions of power and use all means other than to keep their power.
Snd this is because they intend to fo what Fr. Robert Imbelli has described as “decapitating the Body of Christ.”
Chris. No debate, 100% abstention from addressing issues within the Church with its prominent members leaves no other option except opposition, and in instances our visible posture of condemnation. Whereas posing questions, requesting answers, even challenging a response with members of the hierarchy with whom we disagree leaves open the possibility of a change of heart. Dialogue with those who remain adamantly opposed to pursuing the truth would reveal their agenda to the public.
And perhaps most important is that the Church at large, those who aren’t as 100% certain that they’re correct have the opportunity to be informed regarding the truths of our faith by a question and answer dialogue.
And I agree with you on Richard Cross’ analysis, Cross a psychologist and academic perceives the closed mindset of the Left both in academia and the Church. Although Cross is himself an academic and professional psychologist, and I am a priest, I am commissioned to represent neither academia nor psychology per se, except from the perspective of Christ, and the gift of grace, and my academic training.
The gift of grace is available to all, including the apostate left, the hardened atheist. I’m called to seek all, and to convince them regarding the truth of Christ. I would be insulting Our Lord if I didn’t employ my faculty of reason, and the wisdom that comes with the Holy Spirit. Not that I haven’t studied and taught on a professional level either, or that I’m lesser equipped to debate the truth because I’m ordained. We’re compelled by Christ to seek out his lost sheep. No one is entirely lost until the eternal Judge deems so. Laity within their own capacity also share in that mission by their baptism as priest, prophet, and king. These charisma received when baptized, although not through the exclusive charism of priestly ordination have as their mission to express the truth, witness it, and similar to the ordained offer prayer and sacrifice for the conversion of sinners. All sinners are called to repentance. Our mission is not to deter that, rather to facilitate that repentance.
Wonderfully well said, dear Fr Peter Morello, PhD.
How encouraging for a layman like me to hear a Catholic priest firmly & clearly declaring the eternal truths & salvaging mission that King Jesus Christ & His Holy Spirit-anointed Apostles have passed on to us – both ordained & lay – guaranteeing union with them for all who hear & obey.
There still is a Treasure in this dirty, unwanted ecclesia; there still is a Pearl of great price to be found in this malodourous, chaotic, religious marketplace. Matthew 13:44-45 Thanks be to God.
Ever looking to The Lamb of God; love & blessings from marty
Fr. Morello:
I certainly agree with you and with Mr. Chapp that we must soldier on and appeal to reason and the heart, and for my part, I am fully committed to that.
That’s our obligation, the duty we owe to The Word Made Flesh, a duty of love for him, our loved ones, our friends, and our fellow man.
I’m all in when it comes to that.
I expect to be, and like others, am indeed ignored and pushed aside, even by family and friends, because of it.
That is part of what Bonhoeffer called “the cost of discipleship.”
I add my praise to your analysis. Academic pride was well proven during the pontificates of the JPII and Benedict treated with smug condescension by their intellectual inferiors. Pride is a catastrophic force, often correlating with education, that can destroy civilizations. This current ecclesial war is not ephemeral. It is as continuous as pride in the human soul. It is God’s war, and God fights His war His way as varied as his creatures.
God’s grace can easily move the resentment of young college grads to begin questioning the nonsense they were taught, made apparent from institutional financial swindles forcing them to consider human vanity in ways that would never have occurred from worthwile theology books they were never destined to read. It doesn’t require scholarly victories, only common sense, to deduce Francis has been materially heretical. Dealing with this indisputable reality requires the same fortitude that has been necessary for the whole history of internal ecclesial struggles of two thousand years.
The Emperor has no clothes.
Thank you for addressing how the left plays by its own rules, usually those of Saul Alinsky. Many schools that claim to be Catholic are Catholic In Name Only. This has made it necessary for external organizations to rate schools when it comes to matters of faith. In addition to the 1967 Land ‘O Lakes Statement, you can add the gutting of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Too many bad eggs passed through and were promoted by the post Vatican II papacies. St. John Paul II didn’t live to see the gutting of the Pontifical Academy for Life, but Benedict did live to see his Latin Mass initiative gutted.
Thank you – for discerning and sharing the roots and fruits of the divides .
One advantage for the common laity in our times is access to simple yet very beneficial ‘lived in experiences’ of Sts such as St.Faustina , narrated in her Diary – which too was under the index one time due to misunderstandings in the translation .
The simple yet profound lessons in there , which one can open at random to gain timey insights – such as how The Lord sees the intention of the heart , how He chooses to destroy that which does not originate in desire to love Him and do His Holy Will – to also thus convey the truths of the evil of contraception and related evils, how they are to be seen instead as occasion to allow carnal passions to be sacrificed for the greater good to be more closely united to the Lord in The Passion , for its blessings at much deeper and wider levels .
Glad that the author does see the good in dialogue – one can wonder if such a process was in place, along with powerful spiritual help , such as silent exorcism in the presence of powerful Father figures would have prevented many who turned against The Church to take whole nations along with them !
The Holy Father might very well be also dealing with persons who at one time were lukewarm or worse , yet now have returned to the Faith , thus have more compassion and patience and zeal for those who are in similar steps , instead of the old style of( hastily ) putting the ax to the tree .The Flood of deeper Light such as through the Divine Will related revelations – another source , to counter the flood waters of the dragon…The call to work together to overcome the hardness of hearts , even through the dialogue format of articles such as above, to have a more grateful and less cynical attitude towards the Holy Father as a needed remedy for the evils –
seeing good even in his steps to bless all the children of Abraham – The Diary also mentions how every life is from the Love and Will of The Father ..may The Synod be an occasion for all the chidren of The Mother to experience that Truth at every stage of life, to try to live in accordance , even as just and right measures too are needed to correct those who have become obstinate , bent on destroying those around !
Crusader above – That Belgian bishop would be Johan Bonny of Antwerp. He wants us to discern the difference between a 40-year-old and a 90-year-old with a terminal illness to see who is eligible (so far not recruited) for euthanasia. My mother and father are turning in their graves.
Great analysis. I had often wondered why “lived experience in all two thousand years of the Church’s existence” wasn’t included alongside theological arguments because, as you point out, theology by itself was insufficient even in the pre Vatican II period. I do have 2 points of disagreement: I somewhat disagree on the matter of Charles “upchuck” Curran (as well as other anti-catholic catholics of that period). A magisterial correction should have included prohibiting him from teaching in a Catholic Institution and providing that any Catholic institution violating this provision would lose its identity as a Catholic institution; and that his publications could no longer be referred to as Catholic. Draconian? No! He was a big shot. Get a job at Harvard or Yale teaching Dissident theology. I was 20 yrs old in 1968. Having this roach (and his pals) clearly identified as non-catholic would have made a big difference to me and many others too. He would likely have protested that he was being “silenced”; the reply to which would have been simple: “talk, teach, write all you want. You just can’t pretend to be Catholic anymore.” My next point takes up the matter of Bergoglio. You claim (almost in passing) that we must:”eschew all lazy thinking about “the great apostasy” or sedevacantism or “Pope Francis is a heretic”, and realize that this is the reality of the Church we inhabit and get on with it.” Since you so easily toss around the term “lazy thinking”, I’m happy to throw it back at you. You are correct in noting that “apostasy, sedevacantism, heretic” won’t win us any arguments with liberals,etc. Guess what Professor? We already knew that! The Lazy thinking is between YOUR ears. In other articles wherein you’ve dismissed or ridiculed those who question the legitimacy of the gruesome Bergoglian papacy, I have yet to see you address any of the various reasons given for doubting Bergoglio. If you can’t be bothered because they are “obviously trivial”, you ought to at least say so. I will name 2 that are not at all trivial: the strong probability of an invalid election; the 10 year long tunnel of false teaching and heresy: something completely unprecedented in the history of the Papacy.
George:
Your point about upholding “all 2000 years of lived experience of the Catholic faithful” is paramount.
Naturally, the “Catholic-left” or “Team Francis” (as Austen Ivereigh called his own tribe) are opposed to those “who have gone before us marked with the sign of faith.”
They oppose the belief that God and truth are unchanging, as declared for example by St. James in his letter (1: 17). This is outright rejected by the prominent spokesman of the “Catholic-left” and “Team Francis,” Cardinal Kasper, who in 1969 (?) stated in his work “God in History” this manifesto: “The God who sits enthroned over the world and history as a changeless being is an offense to man. One must deny him for man’s sake, because he claims for himself the dignity and honor that belong by right to man…. We must oppose this God…. He is not the true God at all, but rather a wretched idol. For a god who…is not himself history, is a finite God…. Such a God springs from a rigid worldview; he is the guarantor of the status quo, and the enemy of the new.”
So there we have it, in the words of the champion theologian of the Catholic-left and Team Francis: if we profess faith in the revelation of St. James, who lived with Jesus and died by the sword to proclaim the revelation of Jesus, we are are idolators of what he calls a wretched idol.
The only question left, it seems, is what the name if Kasper’s “religion” is.
Chris, it was actually Dr. Chapp who made this point in his article above. I only re-iterated it.
Thank you George for clarifying that.
It’s an excellent point.
Frank, you say ” like the church blessing of gay unions, which Pope Francis recently gave his papal approval to, in his recent official answer to a “dubia” submitted by some conservative bishops.”. Have you read the Pope’s response to the dubia? I’ve just reread his response to question 2 (on gay marriage) which has points (a) through (g), and I can’t believe all the people online claiming it gives the green light (or even the yellow light as per John Allen) to same sex blessings. It just doesn’t. Surely the later points talking about wise discernment, pastoral charity and prudence need to be read in the light of the points he makes above, in which case there is no green lightand not even a yellow light. It is easy to think of an example of a blessing which would not constitute approval, and therefore makes perfectly orthodox interpretation of (e) (f) (g) possible.
Cardinal Mueller is one of those who called out Bergoglio on this. I think Mueller’s interpretation can certainly be trusted
Seriously considering moving to St. Mary’s, KS and going SSPX at this point. It may be the best option to keep access to the authentic Catholic faith. Perhaps Dr. Chapp could convince my why I should not?
If I was going to leave the One, Holy and Apostolic Church because I was mad at the Pope, I would pick someplace closer to the beach. 🏄♂️😎
I am not sure the SSPX route involves leaving the OHC&A Church; they have valid bishops, priests and sacraments. Obviously, their status is irregular, but what I am sure of is that a Church that blesses homosexual unions is not being led by the Holy Spirit. And Kansas is nicer than you think.
who knows? maybe after the “really big earthquake” Kansas will be on the coast!
I concede the point about Kansas. As for your name, consider BXVII, we already had an authentic Pope BXVI.
…
“We need instead, this time around, a more effective pastoral strategy that makes use of the greatly increased channels of communication and information one finds in the digital internet age.”
Maybe. I find the whole process a little to puffed up, as though people who don’t bother to assist at Holy Mass will read a 2,500 word online treatise on a theological point. We have a Church which has long-defended the call to holiness versus an insurrection that would like to baptise its pet sins with impunity. The former believes in Hell, the latter thinks it’s a theological construct solely meant to be a killjoy. It’s not that St Thomas hadn’t carefully elucidated every point of Church teaching, it’s that many seek loopholes to justify themselves.
The answer isn’t more words or better communication, but prayer and fasting. People aren’t won over to Christ through better argumentation but by grace, which is available in abundance to those who repent.
Agree, Genevieve. To speak of a “more effective pastoral strategy” as the answer to our prayer does seem to send a stream of ice water on the Word and on Its tongues as of fire.
The ‘pastoral’ strategy, the striving of VCII to unite theological opposites, has led to where we are today. This is a race, as St. Paul has told. Are we in it for Christ? Or do we play a game to make nice with demons more powerful and intelligent than we?
I cannot help but question whether Benedict resigned because he realized the full extent and entrenchment of the enemy within his house. The demonic power perhaps overwhelmed his weak heart and human comprehension.
Genevieve, Your closing point is absolutely true. Better argumentation, although important under certain circumstances, goes nowhere by itself. “George, where are you going?” a small voice reminding me to pray and fast before “setting off”. Thanks again, Genevieve!
“it is that very magisterial authority as the producer of “timeless doctrines” that was being called into question.”
I don’t think the importance of this can possibly be overstated. It is, in the end, what Protestantism was driven by – the assumption that we can look past the authority of the Church to understand doctrine better than the Church to this point. Remember, the first Reformers did not look like today’s mainline Protestants who reject almost anything and everything to do with historical Christianity. It took around 500 years to get here. If Catholics are doing the same thing now, however orthodox we insist they are, there is little to suggest that in 500 years the Church won’t look the way the most far out mainline Protestant churches look today.
I am glad to see Dr. Chapp finally acknowledging that his side has been routed from the field, despite how right they may have been theologically. The so-called hermeneutic of “reform in continuity” has been utterly defeated on the field of battle (despite being the righteous side) and the rad progs are just doing mop-up operations at this point.
Looking back, one might speculate that this was the inevitable result of Vatican II, but I am still willing to consider that it didn’t have to be this way if people had been faithful to the letter of the Council. I have always considered myself to be in the St. JPII / Benedict XVI / Communio camp, but most of what they accomplished has been erased over the past decade. All that they built and stood for seems so long ago and far away now. They were not nearly firm or ruthless enough with the enemies of the faith in their midst. Perhaps they were just naive.
It’s sad to see Dr. Chapp have to finally acknowledge that his beloved Ressourcement Theology just hasn’t been able, and now he admits it won’t be able, to sell itself to modern apostates, despite having the clearly better arguments. I am not sure I agree with his fallback strategy, though. I have the strong feeling that those of us who seek to “build from below” in the current structure / environment of the Church are going to keep getting crushed. A mere strategy shift at this late juncture is unlikely to reverse the outcome of a war that could and should have been won, but unfortunately has already been fought and lost. It’s looking more and more to me like we have a choice between two options, both of which Dr. Chapp still considers dead-ends: tradition or progressivism. If those are my only choices, I will take tradition every time. I could probably even learn to like the Latin Mass.
I am praying that somehow, some way, those won’t be the only options I have to choose from. In other words, I am praying for a miracle, for divine intervention. Perhaps something like the “Warning” or “Illumination of Conscience” will occur, radically changing perspectives and setting Christ’s Church back on the right track. I am not sure I believe in the Garabandal prophesies, but I admit to grasping at straws at this point.
Actually, the notion that theology alone is not sufficient and that the Council fathers and the ressourcement theologians failed to win the day because they were too focused on “getting the theology right” has been a mainstay of my writing for three years now. In almost everything I have written on the topic of 20th century Catholic theology has made this point. And my constant, endless, and almost tiresome repetition of the importance of the universal call to holiness and sanctity as of paramount importance in converting the culture was the central theme of my book. And so I have no idea what you are taking about when you engage in your snarky little comment about me “finally” having to admit that my precious ressourcement theology did not win the day.
And I would not run off to Kansas if I were you to join the SSPX. They might have a good liturgy but I would not romanticize them into some kind of pure safe haven of pure Catholicism for the pure. I have friends who were long time members of SSPX communities who finally left after years of exposure to the toxic culture that often exists in these enclaves or righteous superiority and intellectual shallowness. Many of these communities harbor deep symathies with anti-Semitism, bizarre notions of female submission to male authority, and Freemason flying monkeys behind every rock.
Dear Professor Larry Chapp,
You’re right to caution those planning to run to a ‘sanctuary’ of right-wing traditionalism. Great discernment is needed to determine if self-serving autocrats are ruling the roost. Also, to what extent their proclaimed New Testament authenticity is really in the spirit of Jesus Christ & His Apostles or is simply a front for weird, greedy, racist, violent, or even immoral practices.
However, am concerned by your: “Freemason flying monkeys behind every rock”. You are using the same ridiculing strategy evinced from actual freemasons when identified in the Catholic Church and other Christian organizations.
Hoping & praying, dear Larry, that you’re not covertly one of those double-minded, universalist, unitarian, New Testament-demeaning, philosopher theologian catholics.
Stay well. Ever following King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
To all Christian healers: I’ve heard it said that generic medicine is just as efficacious as that carrying a brand name. Sedatives may be offered to patients daring duels with doctors. For those with loss of reason, institutionalization or an exotic vacation may present viable options. [Ah, and one asks why we sometimes wish we had entered another profession~!]
I think Dr. Chapp has the proper diagnosis, but I am skeptical that his suggested approach will win the day (not that it isn’t good in itself). One thing I agree with Francis about is that “God is a God of surprises”, and so I disagree with Chapp about not hoping for a Pope “Gandalf”. It was Cardinals appointed by Benedict and JPII who gave us Francis the First, there’s a surprise for you, and I both hope and pray that Cardinals appointed by Francis will give us a very different pope than Francis might like.
In some sense who the next Pope is does not matter to the point I am making. I pray too that the next Pope is someone much, much better at being Pope than the current one. But no matter who the Pope is he is not going to be able to resolve the theological crisis presented by liberal theology via Papal decree and motu proprios. The theological guild ignored and vilified JPII and Benedict and they will do the same thing to the next Pope. There are things that a Pope can do to help the situation, prime among them simply being a steadfast rock of orthodoxy and theological sanity so that at least there is a center that holds and at least Rome maintains orthodoxy for a future time when theology comes back to sanity. In the meantime, Gondor must fight on and that means continuing to foreground really good theology to the extent that we can and trying to build up a Catholic subculture of vibrant truth, goodness, holiness, and beauty.
Amen
Dear Larry Chapp: “. . continuing to foreground really good theology to the extent that we can and trying to build up a Catholic subculture of vibrant truth, goodness, holiness, and beauty.”
Am not sure that the subculture you define is more than the aim of many ‘vibrant’ philosophies & religions, even the public persona of freemasonry.
Certainly, somewhat at variance with the life-giving, all-encompassing tenor of our beautiful Catechism of the Catholic Church, so loathed by the Lodge.
Catholic theologians who build on Perfect Being Theism, as is consistent from Matthew to Revelation in the 27 texts of The New Testament, are not, nor ever will be, a ‘SUB’ culture. Am saddened by the typically freemason conspiratorial tone of your view of the future of our Catholic theology.
“I pray that The God of our LORD Jesus Christ, The Father of Glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom & revelation as you come to know Him, so that with the eyes of your heart enlightened, you may know what is the hope to which He has called you, what are the riches of His glorious inheritance among the saints and what is the immeasurable greatness of His power for us who believe, according to the working of His great power.” Ephesians 1:17-19
‘Ain’t nuttin ‘SUB’ ’bout that, dear Prof.!
Take care. Ever under the wisdom of The Holy Spirit; love & blessings from marty
Ressourcement, it seems to me, sums up Ratzinger’s lifelong practice and example.
It would be wrong to say it “didn’t work in the end”. Ressourcement attests to sound self-possession in the life of fidelity that is exemplified in Ratzinger.
‘ ….. St. John Leonardi was hailed by Pope Benedict XVI during a 2009 general audience as a “luminous priestly figure” whose life offers a model for contemporary clergy. In that address, the Pope highlighted the saint’s Christ-centered approach to the social and spiritual problems of his day. ‘
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint/st-john-leonardi-712
The quotation is from the NC REGISTER article. I have decided to read these articles here in the links, as a penance. It wouldn’t make any sense whatsoever to wait until the end of the so-called “Synod on Synodality”. And the priest would not be able to figure it out if I went to confession,; rather I would have to confide in some different manner.
‘ “Faith without charity bears no fruit,” the Holy Father wrote, “while charity without faith would be a sentiment constantly at the mercy of doubt.” ‘
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/five-quotes-from-benedict-xvi-on-faith
https://www.ewtnvatican.com/articles/5-times-benedict-xvi-spoke-about-the-importance-of-faith-formation-607
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/4314/pope-benedict-decries-cafeteria-catholicism
https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-benedict-ignorance-faith-risks-creating-cafeteria-catholics
https://wherepeteris.com/5-quotes-from-pope-benedict-that-changed-my-life/
Here is a real case about witnessing to truth and doing so in charity.
A young woman, recently graduated from college, is living in her parents’ home with her 3 other younger siblings. She announces she is moving into her boyfriend’s apartment (an bedroom in the home of one of her boyfriend’s older siblings), and wants her parents approval and blessing. Her boyfriend’s family is supporting her snd their son in this decision to live together unmarried.
The young woman’s parents respond that they love their daughter, and want only what is good for her and her boyfriend, and tell her that what she intends to do is wrong for her and her boyfriend, and her parents cannot support her decision to live together unmarried, and that they will never stop loving her, and they will not endorse living together unmarried. Their daughter is very hurt and upset to hear that, but moves in with her boyfriend anyway.
The daughter, after moving in with her boyfriend, in the home owned by the boyfriend’s brother, asks her parents to visit with them in the house where she lives with her boyfriend. Her parents tell her they cannot do that, because visiting her like that would be understood by all, including her younger siblings, as supporting her in living together with her boyfriend unmarried. Now the daughter is heartbroken and everyone in her boyfriend’s family, including her boyfriend’s parents, are concerned that the daughter’s family is ostracizing her.
The boyfriend’s dad invites the young woman’s father to lunch, and explains that the young woman is heartbroken, and needs to have her parents’ acceptance. The boyfriend’s father explains that this type of estrangement happened in his own family when he was young, and it caused lasting damage to family relationships. The boyfriend’s dad asks the young woman’s father if the reason keeping him from visiting his daughter while living together is because of concern for setting the right example for his 3 other children, especially his 14 yr old son.
The young woman’s father says yes, of course that is one reason. The father then explains to the boyfriend’s dad that the principal reason is that it is wrong for the couple, for his own daughter and for the other dad’s son, and that even if there were no other young children in the family made vulnerable to this situation, he would still refuse to visit, as it would the father cannot be unfaithful to what he knows is true, that it is wrong to live together unmarried.
The boyfriend’s dad then asks: “How are you going to act from now on, because your daughter is heartbroken that you won’t visit her.” The young woman’s father answers: “I will act in the best way I can act, in faith, hope and love.”
The boyfriend’s dad, who is himself a church-going man, makes no reply to that statement, and having finished the discussion, the two fathers leave and go their separate ways.
The Question: What was the right thing to do, for a faithful and living Catholic father? Did he do and say what was best for all?
What would Jesus think about his response to his daughter?
To employ the “belief” categories used in the essay: What would a “liberal Catholic” think? What would a “more conservative Catholic” think?
Dear Chris in ‘Maryland’,
Irrespective of whether the father of the fornicating daughter calls himself ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ he is still her father; and her mother is still her mother.
The worse the immorality, the stronger should be the cherishing love of the parents. Their strong faith in Jesus Christ and His Church will always go with them, even in visiting and caring for a fornicating daughter & her fornicating boyfriend. In fact, Christ in these believing parents may be the only true lifeline to God that this young couple will experience. The beneficial effects of that may take decades to bear fruit.
Whenever we are tempted to cut off relationships (for whatever reason) we disobey Jesus’ command to love our enemies and bless them and do good for them.
Matters become psychologically complex, though, if the father is unconsciously insecure in his relationship with King Jesus Christ. If he isn’t confident that Christ dwells in his heart (2 Corinthians 13:5) & that no one can snatch him out of the hands of Christ (John 10:27-30) then he is likely to be the sort of borderline-Christian Catholic who fears contamination by contact with sinners. And, as we are all instructed: “Have no fear, just believe!” Mark 5:36.
Cancelling a person is always a very serious sin. Luke 15:28-32
In the latter case, the father (and mother) needs to receive strong ministry by a faith-filled Catholic prayer group, to strengthen their faith level and trust in the unconquerable power of Jesus Christ. Once certain of who they are in Christ, visiting their fornicating daughter will become desirable and empowered. Though, they’ll need to pray constantly and ask for the gift of wisdom about how they relate to her.
In short: these things are impossible if we don’t do them under Jesus’ direction.
This advice CANNOT be transferred to the question of the relationship between The Church and those who flout Christ’s commandments. The Church is part of the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ, and it is preposterous to welcome in those who show hatred to Christ by willfully disobeying His commands. Sinners have first to repent and resolve to reform before being received INTO the Holiness that is God-With-Us.
Of course, The Church lovingly and non-condemningly ministers to even the worst sinners (as we ourselves once were). Helping sinners to find The LORD Jesus Christ is the main mission of The Church. However, The Church can’t do this work if it itself incorporates people who show they hate Christ by unrepentantly flouting His commands.
It should be obvious (even to PF): The Church can’t do its Christ-ordained work when it is merely another church & no longer The Church.
Thank you very much for the real-life example, dear ‘Chris in Maryland’. You’ve stirred an elderly brain into activity. Must take a rest now . . !
Ever in the incomparable love of King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Sounds like the daughter is the one trying to force the issue by demanding approval and blessing. This inverts the fourth commandment. It looks like her parents values are being treated like they are disposable. Love is a two way street. The demand for respect appears to be in one direction only, on the daughter’s terms. That the daughter will only accept full normalization of her co-habitation. Was there any attempt to meet in a neutral location away from the site of the sinning?
The Western world is effectively agnostic, the direction Christianity in all its manifestations is probably headed. The intellect is gathering dust while the experiential receives a frequent libation of maudlin sentiment.
O tempora!
And Dr. Chapp does not, presumably, conside Balthazar a liberal theologian? Was there a bunch of theologians musing about universal salvation before him?