The Catholic Faithful: theology

Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts

07 April 2012

Lenten Mission 2012 - Climbing the Mountain of God

Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo, Christ leading Peter, James and John to the High Mountain for the Transfiguration, The Armand Hammer Collection, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1770-80s

The Entombment of Christ, Badalocchio. John 19:38-42

20 October 2011

The True Spirit of Assisi May Surprise

Let us consider the following words of St. Francis of Assisi in light of the false ecumenism that is overshadowing the Church in these our days:

"Also those are doomed who see the
Sacrament of the Body of Christ, which is consecrated with the words of
the Lord on the altar and by the hand of the priest in the form of
bread and wine, but do not see in it the Spirit and Divinity and have
not believed that it really is Our Lord Jesus Christ’s most holy Body
and Blood” (Admonitio prima de Corpore Christi (Quaracchi edition, p. 4))

Saint Francis of Assisi was firmly committed to the truth that “outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation.” He was not an apostle of Gaudium et spes dialogue. He was an apostle of Christ who preached the Gospel,

1. for the salvation of those souls who were already Catholic, but had fallen away from the Gospel ideal, and

2. for the salvation of infidels and non-believers, whom he knew would be lost if they did not embrace Christ and His one true Catholic Church.

His biographer, Fr. Cuthbert, OSFC, wrote in 1916 that Saint Francis was “apt to be impatient with meddlers and heretics to the end” (Cuthbert, Life of Saint Francis of Assisi )

In fact, Saint Francis spoke harsh words about those who do not accept Catholic truth. He did not speak in vague terms about the “seeds of truth found in all religions" or as “an invitation to dialogue between the great monotheistic religions in the service of the human family”* (*This is a direct quote from Pope John Paul II. See “On Pilgrimage to Mt. Sinai,” Origins, March 9, 2000. Regarding John Paul II’s disappointing commitment to ecumenical novelties, Fr. Joseph de Sainte Marie, who was a theologian and loyal son of the Pope, emitted the broken-hearted lament and warning: “In our day, and it is one of the most obvious signs of the extraordinarily abnormal character of the current state of the Church, it is very often the case that the acts of the Holy See demand of us prudence and discernment” -- from A propos, Isle of Skye, Scotland)

Saint Francis vs. Islam

Around 1219, after a General Chapter of the Order, Saint Francis decided to undertake a mission to the Muhammadans in Egypt, where also there was a Crusade being fought.

During this time, Francis stayed with the Christian army, and then crossed over to the Moslem lines. Once outside the Christian lines, he was seized by Moslem soldiers. Francis told the soldiers that he wanted to preach Christ to the Sultan, who allowed him into the camp.

When brought to the Sultan, Francis said, “I am sent by the Most High God, to show you and your people the way of salvation by announcing to you the truths of the Gospel” (Lives of Saints, “Saint Francis of Assisi” ). And when Saint Francis preached, the Sultan felt himself very much drawn to Francis and to the power of his words. So much so, that he invited Francis to stay with him.

“Willingly,” Francis replied, “if you and your people will be converted to Christ.” (Cuthbert, Life of St. Francis )

Francis then proposed his famous challenge. He said:

“If you yet waver between Christ and Mohammed, order a fire kindled and I will go into it with your priests that you may see which is the true Faith” (Lives of Saints, John J. Crawley & Co. ).

The Sultan was not willing to permit this trial by fire, so Francis requested permission to leave. And the Sultan gave orders that Francis be conducted back to his camp with courtesy.

While this was going on in Egypt, there were five firebrand Franciscan Friars kicking up so much dust in Muslim Morocco that all five of them would be put to death. Their names were Brothers Berardo, Ortho, Pietro, Accurso and Aduto.

First they went to Spain, to Moslem Seville. And because they tried to preach the Gospel there, they were scourged, imprisoned and expelled from that kingdom. Then they went over to Muslim Morocco in an attempt to convert the infidels. When they arrived, these Friars did more than just preach in the streets. They marched right into a mosque and denounced Mohammed from inside the mosque (Cuthbert, Life,).

The Friars were seized, imprisoned and scourged, but that did not temper their zeal. While in prison, they tried repeatedly to convert the jailers.

The rulers of Morocco were trying to find a diplomatic way out of this, so they arranged that these imperious Friars be sent out of the country.

And how did the five Franciscans respond?

Father Cuthbert relates:

“But the five Friars knew nothing of diplomacy and had not the temper to live and let live. Mohammed was, in their eyes, the enemy of Christ, and the souls of this people were rightful spoils for their Divine Redeemer. To go back upon their mission would be a traitorous backsliding from their fealty to their Savior.”

At the first opportunity, these wiry Franciscans gave their jail-keepers the slip. Immediately, they returned to the city, and there they were again, in front of the mosque appealing to the infidels to renounce Mohammed and accept Christ.

They were seized, cast into jail and tortured. While they were on the rack, the jailers promised the Friars that their lives would be spared and they would be given gifts, if they would deny Christ and accept Mohammed.

The Friars responded by uttering the praises of Our Lord, and urged the torturers to renounce Mohammed and accept Jesus Christ.

The Muhammadans answered by beheading each Friar, and casting their bodies outside the walls to be the food of dogs. A Portuguese dignitary arranged a stealth operation to have their bodies rescued. They were taken to Portugal, and with great reverence they were laid in the Church of the Canons Regular (Augustinian) in Coimbra.

Among all the people who flocked to pray to and honor the martyred Franciscans, there was a young Augustinian Canon who was enraptured by the zeal and love of Christ that burned in these Friars. He sought out the local Franciscans and begged to be admitted to the Order.

That young Augustinian, who became Franciscan, is now known to us as Saint Anthony of Padua, the Miracle Worker, whom Catholics honor with the title the Hammer of Heretics.

And as for Saint Francis: What did he think of these five Friars who marched into a mosque and denounced Mohammed from within the Muslim’s own holy place? Who urged Moslems for their own salvation not to follow the false prophet, Mohammed? Did Saint Francis organize on the following March 12 a grand apology for the insensitivity of his friars for not understanding that the “Moslems, together with us, worship the same God”?

No! Francis cried out in a transport of gratitude to Heaven, “Now I can truly say I have five brothers”.

This is the true spirit of Assisi!

24 June 2011

Backbiting

An excerpt from,

Sins of the Tongue: The Backbiting Tongue

by Father Belet, of the Diocese of Basle

Translated from the French, 1870 ed.

"There are eight specific ways in which a man can backbite his neighbor:

1. When he gets carried away by vanity and imputes things against his neighbor that never happened, or when he adds to the truth imaginary circumstances that constitute either a lie or detraction.

2. When he brings a hidden or unknown fault to light. What he says is true, but he should not say it. He backbites, not by saying something untrue, but by wounding his neighbor's reputation. This is a very common sin among us.Now you might object, "Do you mean to say I can't tell the truth ?" No, my friend. It is not permitted, unless you can do so without harming your neighbor. What you say is true, I admit, but it is hidden. The sinner has wounded his conscience in God's sight, but he has not lost his reputation before men; therefore, you may not weaken or destroy it with your tongue. And even if the sin you reveal is not altogether secret but known only to a few, as long as it is not public knowledge, you are backbiting if you reveal it to someone who was unaware of it And thus you are harming your neighbor.

3. When he exaggerates a crime, be it true, or false. This is a danger to which we readily expose ourselves when we talk about the vices of others.

4. When he relates something about another person that is not evil in any way, but speaks as though his neighbor had done it for evil reasons and adds various explanations such as, "Yes, he did that, but not with God in mind... He's not so pious as all that; he seeks to please men, he wants to stand out… You should know him, he's a hypocrite."

5. When a backbiter declares nothing but is happy to say, "I've heard it said that…" or, "There's a rumor going around..." or when he relates something as if it were doubtful: "So-and-so might not be exactly what you think, I don't think he is deserving of confidence. His neighbors never heard anything about his holiness, except that only since yesterday has he been rated among the devout." Or again, when he praises with coldness and reticence. Aulu-Gelle says, "It is more shameful to be coldly and reservedly praised than harshly and bitterly accused." All these ways of acting must be avoided with the greatest care, for people always seek evil more than good.

6. Backbiting is so subtle that anyone can defame another person with a simple gesture. He hears someone being praised for his integrity, piety or generosity, and he says, "Oh. you don't know that fellow? I see right through him. Ask me anything about him, I know him inside out." Or he raises an eyebrow and remains silent; he shakes his head; he turns his eyes so as to have it understood that the person being praised does not deserve it Sometimes a backbiter may keep his mouth shut and just turn his hand two or three times to indicate that the person in question is lightheaded and changes from hour to hour.

7. He can backbite not only with body language but also with silence. He may wickedly say nothing about the integrity or morals of his neighbor, especially when he is questioned about them or when his neighbor is accused of some crime.

8. Finally, a person is guilty of backbiting if he is publicly blamed for something he did, and he denies his guilt, thereby making his accuser pass for a liar. It is surely not an obligation to publicly admit a fault committed in secret. However, one should justify himself in some other way, saying, for instance, "Those are only words, they don't prove anything. Whoever heard them may have been mistaken. Don't believe everything you hear." This way of speaking is far more acceptable than the first.II.That is how backbiting does its diabolical work. It changes costume so slickly, we can hardly recognize it. Malice is ingenious: It spots a beam where there is only a wisp of straw, an elephant where there is only a fly, a mountain high as the Alps where there is only a molehill. It turns dream into reality and taints the virtues of others so skilfully with its own colors that we mistake them for vices."

12 June 2011

Scandal Involving a Priest

Whenever you learn any scandal about a priest, remember this: Even the Blessed Virgin Mother of God the Son would bow to any priest. It's never right to commit evil that good may come of it --- gossip is always wrong.

I should add: gossip is always evil, but when it comes from a priest it is more so. He is still a priest, therefore, you are all the more obliged to pray for his soul. I've heard the excuse that it is gossip only when the sin is not otherwise known publicly, but sometimes the sins that are 'known' publicly are spread maliciously and may even be false. Guard your tongue if you wish to not offend God. If you are tempted, offer it up to God, Who is never out done in charity and will promptly reward you in merit and graces. When you honor a priest, you honor He Who made the man a priest. If the gossip is of true account, remember it is still gossip, and unless your discussion has at it's heart some immediate and objective moral value to the hearer, then you do no good in such conversation. The matter can only be rectified by the proper authority.

Shun conversation of those that take perverse delight in the scandals involving priests --- no mater how pious they otherwise seem. Very few things are as poisonous to the soul.

If you are the one seriously wronged by a priest, remember you honor God by honoring the office of the priest, as it was not given to him by man but by God. See it as a sign of warning to you and to all as to how one can still fall far from God's grace, even when much is given. God never gives anyone more than they can withstand, as with priests, whom He gives all the graces they need to fulfill their office. The soul of the priest is at greater risk. Do not be scandalized as the Church is always the Bride of Christ, although some members that are merely visible members may be dead to mortal sin, pray that they come back to supernatural life. When reporting the issue, make sure you go straight to the person who is his next superior, and insist on not reporting to anyone else but his superior. Sometimes even well-intended persons may get involved in things that should not be their jurisdiction.

Few things are more hurtful to the heart and emotional stability of a person who has been seriously wronged by their priest. Just always remember that no matter what anyone does to you, God is always the same, and His Bride always contains the deposit of truth that will never change. God will always be with one who is true to Him and He will shower you with grace in your time of trial as far as you continue in the faith Jesus Christ won for you by the Cross. Remember this when you pray the "Our Father", and in thanksgiving for God's mercy towards you, use your sufferings to gain help for the priest that has otherwise hurt you. No one can take away your faith.+

19 April 2011

Occasions of Sin --- Not a New or Out-of-Date Concept

Occasions of Sin

Occasions of Sin are external circumstances--whether of things or persons--which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin.

It is important to remember that there is a wide difference between the cause and the occasion of sin. The cause of sin in the last analysis is the perverse human will and is intrinsic to the human composite. The occasion is something extrinsic and, given the freedom of the will, cannot, properly speaking, stand in causal relation to the act or vicious habit which we call sin. There can be no doubt that in general the same obligation which binds us to refrain from sin requires us to shun its occasion. Qui tenetur ad finem, tenetur ad media (he who is bound to reach a certain end is bound to employ the means to attain it).

Theologians distinguish between the proximate and the remote occasion. They are not altogether at one as to the precise value to be attributed to the terms. De Lugo defines proximate occasion (De poenit. disp. 14, n. 149) as one in which men of like calibre for the most part fall into mortal sin, or one in which experience points to the same result from the special weakness of a particular person. The remote occasion lacks these elements. All theologians are agreed that there is no obligation to avoid the remote occasions of sin both because this would, practically speaking, be impossible and because they do not involve serious danger of sin.

As to the proximate occasion, it may be of the sort that is described as necessary, that is, such as a person cannot abandon or get rid of. Whether this impossibility be physical or moral does not matter for the determination of the principles hereinafter to be laid down. Or it may be voluntary, that is within the competency of one to remove. Moralists distinguish between a proximate occasion which is continuous and one which, whilst it is unquestionably proximate, yet confronts a person only at intervals. It is certain that one who is in the presence of a proximate occasion at once voluntary and continuous is bound to remove it. A refusal on the part of a penitent to do so would make it imperative for the confessor to deny absolution. It is not always necessary for the confessor to await the actual performance of this duty before giving absolution; he may be content with a sincere promise, which is the minimum to be required. Theologians agree that one is not obliged to shun the proximate but necessary occasions. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile (no one is bound to do what is impossible). There is no question here of freely casting oneself into the danger of sin. The assumption is that stress of unavoidable circumstances has imposed this unhappy situation. All that can then be required is the employment of such means as will make the peril of sin remote. The difficulty is to determine when a proximate occasion is to be regarded as not physically (that is plain enough) but morally necessary. Much has been written by theologians in the attempt to find a rule for the measurement of this moral necessity and a formula for its expression, but not successfully. It seems to be quite clear that a proximate occasion may be deemed necessary when it cannot be given up without grave scandal or loss of good name or without notable temporal or spiritual damage.

About this page

APA citation. Delany, J. (1911). Occasions of Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 19, 2011 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm

MLA citation. Delany, Joseph. "Occasions of Sin." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 19 Apr. 2011 .

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Tomas Hancil.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Here is a link on the subject:
Occasions of Sin and Company Keeping

03 April 2011

Thoughts on The 4th Sunday of Lent

+JMJ+

There is an old, and always valid axiom in the Catholic church that says, "the law of how you pray (as) the law of your faith (as) the law of how you live", and in Latin, "Lex Orandi. Lex Credendi. Lex Vivendi." In other words, how you live, the things you accept and do not accept, show what you truly believe, and then this shows how you truly pray. Prayer, of course, includes liturgical worship.

There is a school of thought that although is considerably popular among Catholics but is seriously flawed. That thought is a modernistic manner of worship in general. People attend the Mass in shorts, and even with the opportunity to change before attending, people will dress for comfort first with no thought to modesty, much less solemnity. Quite often, their Mass celebration is focused in the error of immanentism, as if the highest good was our charity to our neighbor and not God Himself. This article is not to demean the people who do this, but to help those who will read this examine the philosophies behind this type of casual attitude towards the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and its consequences on souls.

Schnorr Von Carolsfeld

In today's Gospel, we see Jesus's multiplication of the loaves and fishes, and commands that the fragments be gathered, lest they be lost. This miracle* (*and yes, it most certainly was a miracle, and not merely an exaggeration, or a lessen in human prudence --- as some in grave error like to suggest) impresses the people so much, since they were given something their bodies most needed. Jesus, knowing that they would want to make him king so that they would always be fed, literally, ran off into a mountain, alone, to pray.

Jesus fed the people because they were hungry but not merely as an end to itself, but as a miracle to point to the Heavenly Food. He did not wish to be made king of these people who wished first and foremost for their bellies to be satisfied. They weren't ready for the lesson, that he came to feed their souls --- with his own flesh, requiring that he would be sacrificed for their sins.

Too often we think of our own experience of worship, and think that the greater the experience, the better the worship. Whenever we do this, and to the degree that we do this, we are like the followers of Christ who were satisfied only with a meal.

But Christ will later say to those followers, "[26] Jesus answered them, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled. [27] Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. [28] They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? [29] Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. [30] They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work?

[31] Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. [32]Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. [33] For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. [34] They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.[35] And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

[36] But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. [37] All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. [38] Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

The Jews, as you recall, then MURMURED, that is to say, they gossiped about Jesus and made all sorts of presumptions, assumptions, rash judgments and the like. All they saw was this MAN who seemed to be fulfilling the prophecies for their Messiah, and this greatly upset them. Why did it upset them? This upset them because many of the Jews had hoped for a Messiah that would make the land THEIRS in THIS LIFE, and not that they would have to first DIE to have their holy inheritance. Instead, many of them had become greedy and developed great attachments to their wealth, and authority, and in all of this they started to become proud, with an attitude that God would come and gave them all their hearts desires. They were wrapped so much in the material world, that they wished for these things not to glorify God, but in God's name, glorify themselves and fill only their desires even in the name of worship.

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

But getting back to the Gospel today, we see at the end of the passage John 6:1:15 ends:

[14] Now those men, when they had seen what a miracle Jesus had done, said: This is of a truth the prophet, that is to come into the world. [15] Jesus therefore, when he knew that they would come to take him by force, and make him king, fled again into the mountain himself alone.

We as Catholics are reminded that Jesus is a DIVINE PERSON, God the Son, 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity (1 God = 3 Persons), and Jesus has two natures: one fully divine, the other one --- fully human. These two natures of Jesus Christ are what we call hypostatically united, meaning, every action done by Jesus is done with both of his natures fully present and united at the same time, and at all times.

So why did he flee into the mountain? Why did he have to run? As a man, he had a reason to flee from these people who wanted to force him to be king. Jesus, knowing their minds, knew he had to get away from them to pray, because they were wanting a king to give them the goods of this earth and he knew that they wanted to take him by force. He didn't create a miracle of vanishing into the crowd, but rather, he ran to show them and to show us some things about what's important to him. He fled to a mountain to be alone.

Standing on a mountain gives a person a vantage point of the things below, but this is also an allegory for the spiritual view. God wants us to see what should be important to us. Jesus, himself, goes to pray. He doesn't look to give the people what they want in the temporal sense, except when it points them to the higher gifts of the supernatural life of grace, that we may be united to him eventually in heaven. He runs from those that are seeking only happiness in this life, and even those that wish to make him king, but only in the sense that their earthly senses are fulfilled. And still, food for the body is not an extravagance, but even the necessities are given by Christ to point to the greater hunger, which is that of the soul to be united to God.

Christ's answer to those who wish to make him king, but only a mere earthly king in the sense of fulfilling their temporal desires is to flee to a mountain and pray.

This is one of the reasons that the tabernacle has, for most of the Church's history, been on an elevated altar, where even the priest must walk up stairs to reach our Lord (another allegory).

Too often, today, however, Christ, at least in modern tabernacles, is on the level of people sitting down. When they stand, they often peer over Christ in the Holy Eucharist, or near the level of even when the Sacred Eucharist is elevated. They will hold or shake hands even after the consecration --- when our Lord is brought down from heaven. There is so much focus on the "experience" of community, that people regard the Mass as little more than entertainment that gives them spiritual benefits. The concept of worship has been lost, by far, in many communities and parishes.

God the Son took on human flesh; He took on the human condition. How can one be casual when approaching his Sacrifice?

This casualness, when it is really considered, is not only lacking solemnity, that is to say, it is lacking due consideration and measure of decorum (dress, demeanor and interior disposition) but it is also inhumane even on a temporal level. Did not Christ ask his Father that this cup, the price that you might be saved, might be passed from him? Yes, it is true, that God looks to our hearts, and while we may enter the church for Mass as quiet as a "church mouse", with pious decorum, our hearts may carry with them 1000 distractions and temptations, and attachments. Jesus 'hears' all of these clashing cymbals of hearts lacking preparation for his Holy Sacrifice.

Everything we think willfully, do or say will either bring us closer to Jesus and more disposed to worship and receive him in Holy Communion, or it will bring us further away. We are either moving with the grace of God or against it. The prayer of quiet, when we go flee to our 'mountain' and pray alone to God, we gain the graces needed to cooperate with God's grace in our thoughts, words and actions, and thereby prepare us to receive our Heavenly Food, the "Bread of (Supernatural) Life."* (*Note: also frequent Confession helps us gain these graces needed to combat venial sins -- whether fully deliberate or semi-deliberate --- and even our faults, so do not wait until you commit mortal sin!!!)

We cannot afford to be casual when presenting ourselves to God. Think of how Jesus spoke to Simon who, after preparing a meal for Jesus, expected special consideration and attention of Jesus, while the pious St. Mary Magdalene had the disposition to wash Jesus's feet with her tears and anoint them with costly oil. She gave Christ the greatest expense she could afford, both materially and spiritually, and this disposition pleased him, and he rewarded her with the grace of his mercy!

O Sacred Head Surrounded

Lenten Mission (part 3): The Importance of Preparing for Death

Lenten Mission (part 3): The Importance of Preparing for Death

This is the 3rd mission talk of 3 that were posted this year on Audio Sancto.

26 March 2011

The Christian Seder Meal: A Violation of the 1st Commandment

Do you know the meaning behind these symbols?

I hear this way too frequently, "We're celebrating with the having a seder meal." If you attempt to tell such confused, but often pious Catholics, they get very defensive saying that they have done it before, or other people they know and respect do it, or even that their church pastor encourages this. They may even infer that you are being prejudiced against the Jews.

Here's a good, concise response which spells it all out:

The Christian Seder Meal: A Violation Against the 1st Commandment

Here's also an interesting article that speaks of all the disappointed Catholics from one parish that celebrated the seder (insert raised eyebrows here) meal for 20 years. The parish priest and bishop ADMIT that this was meant not to be a teaching instrument but an actual religious ceremony. The parish had received letters from Jews saying that this was offensive to them. Do you want to know why? Catholics celebrating the seder meant to them that these people, ignorant of the significance of the seder, were using it in the opposite way to say that Jesus was the Messiah. Besides the fact that this is pure irony, the seder meal is blasphemous.

Catholic Bishop Ends Passover Meal

More of The Catholic Faithful posts on topic of "Jews"*
(*a very non-prejudice view, with only the facts, written by a Jewish descendant -- just ask my Jewish dad.)

+OREMUS!+

UPDATE: HERE IS ANOTHER SERMON ON THE SAME TOPIC:
Seder Meals Violate the 1st Commandment

It is blaphemous to promote the Seder Meal because it is the celebration of the Messiah not yet come. That is NOT what Catholics celebrate in Lent. We celebrate the Messiah that hasn't yet come LITURGICALLY, which is not the same as denying that Christ has come, in fact. This very form of worship of the Seder Meal represents the denial of Christ coming and hinges upon still being in the desert in reality, and not spiritually. They do not practice this believe that they are in a spiritual need for a greater devotion to Christ, but rather, it essentially denies him as the Messiah.

Russian Orthodox Church: Yes to Cooperation, No to Compromise

From a statement of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokalamsk published in Russia Today (h/tAd Orientem):

Bishop Hilarion commented on his statement to RG as follows.

“The idea of a strategic alliance with the Catholics– is an old idea of mine. It came to me when the Catholics were electing the new Pope. Although I would like to point out that what I am suggesting is, in essence, the direct opposite of Uniatism, which is a way toward a rapprochement based on doctrinal compromises. In our point of view, the policy of Uniatism had suffered complete failure. Not only did it not bring the Orthodox Christians and Catholics closer together, it actually distanced them. And Uniatism, as is currently recognized by both Orthodox believers and Catholics, is not the path toward unity.

‘‘I, on the other hand, am asking to – without any doctrinal compromises and without attempts to artificially level our dogmatic differences, the teachings about the Church and about the superiority of the Universal Church, without the claims to resolve all of the existing problems between us – act as allies, at the same time, without being a single Church, without having a single administrative system or common liturgy, and while maintaining the differences on the points in which we differ.

‘’This is especially important in light of the common challenges that face both Orthodox and Catholic Christians. They are first and foremost the challenges of a godless world, which is equally hostile today to Orthodox believers and Catholics, the challenge of the aggressive Islamic movement, the challenge of moral corruption, family decay, the abandonment by many people in traditionally Christian countries of the traditional family structure, liberalism in theology and morals, which is eroding the Christian community from within. We can respond to these, and a number of other challenges, together.

‘’I would like to stress, once more, that there are well-known doctrinal differences between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths, but there are also common positions in regard to morality and social issues which, today, are not shared by many of the representatives of liberal Protestantism. Therefore, cooperation is first and foremost necessary between the Orthodox and Catholic Christians – and that is what I call a strategic alliance.

‘’The Church is not ready to make any compromises. And I am not calling for compromise, but on the contrary, to uncompromisingly defend our positions.Within the framework of the Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, my position is often the toughest. Meanwhile, the documents that are drafted there, are the most often contested by the ROC delegations. There have been instances when we were forced to walk out of sessions as a sign of disagreement with what was happening. We always very firmly oppose attempts to erode the differences that exist between us.

‘’We don’t need any compromises. We need cooperation and collaboration. And within the framework of the theological commission, we could discuss the differences that exist between us not in order to find a compromise, but in order to clarify our differences and the things we have in common. It could so happen that in the course of discussion we realize that in some doctrinal aspects we are actually closer than seemed to be before – and this will be a rapprochement. But just the opposite could happen: we may see the differences that we have never noticed before.

‘’The theological dialogue should be allowed to take its course; it may or may not lead to some results. Meanwhile, cooperation that is built on a systematic basis and that is founded on the fact that we share many of the same tasks and challenges should be developed at the same time.”

MY THOUGHTS:

I actually can respect the fact the the Russian Orthodox Church wishes not to compromise on dogmatic differences. They're still very wrong (see * below), but I can respect that he is promoting the need for us to focus on the threats of secularism and Islam.

He can get away with saying that because in the past few decades, for the most part, the Church hasn't always been towing the hardline in public support of its dogmas. The head of the Russian Orthodox ends up doing a PR spin that makes us look like patsies.

Side bar on Dogmatic Differences:

The Western Catholic Church can never compromise anyway, on the three main dogmatic differences. It is ridiculous to say, for instance, that Jesus's Incarnation would somehow be limited by the Blessed Mother's Immaculate Conception, any more than he'd be limited if the Blessed Virgin was purified at the conception of Jesus. It makes no sense that the blessed womb of the Virgin Mother of God would be less sacred and pure than the pure soil which made the first man. They say the Immaculate Conception is not biblical, while it's reasonable, and yet their concept is not biblical.

Purgatory is biblical, it's just not used as a word. Why do people expect to say exact words for everything from different cultures? It doesn't always happen in modern cultures, why do they suppose it has to be so with cultures thousands of years apart?

Likewise, the filioque is also biblical. Jesus says he comes to us through the Father, and that he sends the Paraclete -- the expression of the love of God the Father and God the Son.

Russian Orthodox Singers Performing, "Gabriel Appeared"

23 March 2011

On 'Rejecting "sacramentalism"'

In a recent article, the Southern Baptist Church said that it was rejecting "sacramentalism" and lumping Catholics with non-Christians and secular Americans. They, of course, ignore that "sacramentalism" is all over both the Old and New Testament.

"Though opposed to movements toward federation or organic union, Southern Baptists are committed to work with other evangelical denominations in common causes, and count all those who know the Lord Jesus as Savior to be true Christians and our true brothers and sisters. While we differ on important issues such as church government and the nature of the ordinances * (*i.e. opposing all sacramentalism), we nonetheless consider these brothers and sisters to be true Christians with whom we can work toward legitimate spiritual ends (i.e., evangelism and missions).

"Though considering non-Christians and the Roman Catholic Church to be the objects of our spiritual concern and evangelistic mission, we are nonetheless committed to work with “all men of good will in any good cause.” Thus, we can work with secular Americans and Roman Catholic leaders in common cause for the abolition of abortion, the defense of marriage, and in contending for religious liberty, these offered as examples only."

See article in its entirety here:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/07/16/the-southern-baptist-convention-and-the-issue-of-interdenominational-relationships/

Christianity, that is, true Christianity --- the way it was and still is intended by God, is meant to be sacramental. Jesus turned bread into his very flesh, for instance, yet any Christian who says otherwise, is like the apostles when they took off and left Jesus the first time. He did not follow them, but then they eventually came back. John 6:60 - 65 It is interesting to point out that the Greek word Jesus used for the very word, to "eat" his flesh, was similar to the word we have in English today, to 'masticate'. This was Jesus's way of clarifying that this was not to be considered as a symbol, but for those who wished to follow that they must actually consider that this bread was his flesh to be physically consumed, albeit, in an unbloodied manner. The bread would remain the presence of bread, but become his flesh as the new Pascal Lamb, to be truly consumed, joining to his Sacrifice on the Cross, his consummation of death on the Cross.

And see who the Holy Ghost says was the only Apostle not to accept this doctrine? It was none other than Judas.

Some Lenten Resources...

Here are just a few of my favorite, online Lenten resources which may be of interest to you:

Audio Sancto

Some of you may already know of Audio Sancto. It is basically a repository for some of the very best homilies on the Internet. There are categories off to the right, side margin, and there you will also find the Lenten Missions category.

Please pray a Hail Mary for the priests with every download.

Free, Online Access to Many Works of St. Alphonsus Liguouri

That name I used for that link above says it all. How cool is that? Some of those books are out of print, so count yourself very fortunate. My recommendations: Dignities and Duties of the Priesthood, and The Glories of Mary (this book you really should own as a reference as well). I've not yet read it, but I would also recommend The Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. I would recommend Preparation for Death and Victories of the Martyrs, but they are not yet available online. Victories of the Martyrs is awesome, especially the martyrs of Japan, which was one of St. Alphonsus favorite examples of martyrdom and may soon be yours as well.

I most highly recommend the very short treatise, Conformity (Uniformity) to God's Will. It is a short treatise that is a MUST READ and pass on to all your Catholic family and friends. Better yet, buy the little pocket versions for like $5, published by Tan Publishers. It's very handy. Even St. Alphonsus had this, his own work, read to him at his death bed.

Catholic Books Online

This is actually "Catholic Books Online" --- miscellaneous collections free to the public. Not all of them are Lenten themed. I recommend, the The Four Last Things, a medieval classic by Fr. Martin Von Cochem, O.S.F.C., and Four Last Things by Abbe A. Michel, from 1929. This one is a more theologically indepth view, but never-the-less, is quite useful. For instance, towards the beginning of the treatise it describes the psychology of one who is condemned.

Also recommended:

St. Thomas Aquinas's Meditations for Lent.
St. Robert Bellarmine's The Seven Last Words from the Cross.
Alphonsus Rodriguez's On the Examination of Conscience (this is a good one).
St. John Climacus' On the Remembrance of Death, a short, excerpt from his work,"The Ladder of Divine Ascent".

These are not all Lenten in theme, but they are useful in growing in knowledge of the faith: Pro Ecclesia

There you will find everyone from Michael Davies to the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. These are free downloads for your edification.

Music-wise, I highly recommend Tomas Luis Victoria's Requiem as sung by the Choir of the Westminster Cathedral, but you'll have to get that from the library or the store.

Also, there is a great book, The Sadness of Christ, written by St. Thomas Moore just while he was awaiting his execution. It is surprisingly modern in the way that it reads, as if he is talking straight to you, it has that personal of a tone to the work.

COMING UP ON THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL...

Also for your Lenten pleasure, I will be publishing a more thorough 'analysis' of the Triduum liturgies of Lent. These are, for those of you who do not know, comprised of Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Vigil. I've posted about these before, if memory serves, but it was not a very thorough description. There are so many intricate details that relate to the traditions, rubrics, music, history and theology of Catholicism that it is important to go through as many of them as possible. This analysis will again be based on the "old" liturgical rite, still in use today but not known yet again as the "norm" but rather the "Extraordinary Form", sometimes (now incorrectly) known as "the Tridentine Rite". My goal is to give you enough knowledge of these so that you will attend these yourself and see first-hand why it is the most beautiful thing on the face of the earth.

STAY TUNED!!!