Vatican II was unique in the history of councils insofar as the crisis it was called to address was not a specific and well-defined theological heresy. Rather, it was called to address the crisis presented by modernity to the credibility of the entire Christian narrative tout court. The secular world looked at the Christ of the Church like an ancient palimpsest, in which an original manuscript had been written over with the layering of something new. In this case the claim was made that the “historical Jesus” had been glossed over and hidden away as the Church painted something new, which was a distorted image of Jesus as the divine guarantor of the Church’s power over even mundane terrestrial affairs.
Therefore, the challenge of modernity to the Church’s faith went far beyond this or that specific doctrine. It was instead a radical rejection of the very core of the Church’s narrative of who Jesus of Nazareth was and is and, therefore, of the very core of who God is—if He even is—and of what the Church is.
Therefore, and considering this totalizing challenge, Pope John XXIII, in calling the Council, did not task it with updating any particular doctrine in the light of specific theological challenges. Instead, he called on the Council to re-interrogate the entirety of the deposit of the faith and to propose that deposit in a new form, stripped of turgid baroque ecclesiastical language, and in a manner more Christological and evangelical.
To my knowledge, such a project had never before been attempted by the Church. And it does not take a great deal of perspicacity to see that the risks and potential rewards in such an endeavor were huge. Succeed and the Church might just yet reinvigorate her credibility as an authentic interpreter of who Jesus was; fail and the entire ecclesial edifice might collapse into a ragtag flotilla of lost refugees in uncharted waters. In many ways, therefore, Pope John’s mandate was the equivalent of a high-stakes gambler going “all in” with a poker hand that was not a slam dunk.
Pursuing this agenda, the dominant conciliar theology, in my view, was the Christocentric, theological anthropology of the ressourcement school, exemplified in Henri de Lubac’s masterful book The Drama of Atheist Humanism, which found expression in the famous line in Gaudium et Spes 22: “In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.”
The reinterpretive goal of the Council (and the linchpin as well of the entire pontificate of Pope John Paul II) was the trumping of modern secularism’s co-optation of the mantle of true freedom and of a true humanism, by presenting to the world a deeper concept of freedom, grounded in a far more expansive and dignified Christocentric anthropology. It was no accident that Pope John Paul’s first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, was precisely an articulation of this expansive theological anthropology. And this more expansive view included a deeper and more authentic existentialism that emphasizes the natural human thirst for God—even as modernity seeks to explain this thirst away as the epiphenomenal flotsam and jetsam of our neurochemistry.
Like all great and truly consequential ecumenical councils, it is taking time for this essentially ressourcement theological project of Vatican II to take root. One huge reason for this is that the very essence of the Council was an attempt at an interpretive theological retrieval of Jesus Christ as the Revelation of God. But this exercise in theological retrieval opened the door to a flood of alternative theological proposals—e.g. transcendentalist, liberationist, feminist, and political theologies, et al—which were far less traditional and far more accommodating to modernity than the ressourcement theology of the Council and its Christocentric project.
This brings us to where we are now as a Church. Ever since 1962, and in light of the Council’s interpretive theological project, the dominating and overriding issue has been, “Who is in control of the narrative of modern Catholicism?” Who is in control of this project of theological reinterpretation?
Sadly, Vatican II failed to truly energize the Church. It led instead, and despite what it actually said, to all kinds of gnarled secular vines choking everything holy within the Church, mainly because, in the immediate aftermath of the Council, it was the progressive wing of the Church that succeeded in controlling the narrative of what the Council was all about. They had the advantage of a compliant and enthusiastic secular media world, the support of a Catholic theological guild seeking secular praise and approval as real members of the academic elite (thanks for nothing, Father Hesburgh!), and average Catholics of the post-war era eager to embrace and enter the new economic and political order of the liberal West as fully mainstreamed moderns.
It seemed, for a time, that the ressourcement camp had regained the upper hand in the pontificates of John Paul and Benedict. But their efforts were undermined and their success only partial, since the theological guild remained mostly in the hands of the progressives (with some noteworthy exceptions). Furthermore, many priests and prelates continued to drift with the current mood of our cultural social contract. The strategy of the progressives was to lay low, say the right things, and bide their time until the reins of Roman power were in the hands of a different pope.
If you were in the Catholic academy during this time, as I was, you heard this sentiment expressed in a thousand different ways but always with the same inflection: “The conciliar project of modernization has been ‘interrupted’ by reactionary popes stuck in the past, but the curve of history is on our side and our day will come.”
In other words, the burning question of who controls the modern narrative of Catholicism—which is the ecclesial issue of the past sixty years—never went away, despite popes John Paul and Benedict. What we are witnessing in the current torments within the Church is a struggle over irreducible, and therefore intractable, debates rooted in irreconcilable theological first principles. What we are witnessing is nothing short of a wholesale recrudescence of old guard, post-Vatican II progressivism, now linked to ever more transgressive attempts at revision, with a special focus on moral theology in particular. In 1968 it was Humanae Vitae and contraception; today it is LGBTQ everything, but the overall project is the same: The Church must change her moral theology, with an eye toward baptizing the sexual revolution, or it will perish.
And that brings me to the current pontificate. It is, in my view, best read as an attempt to revive a version of the controlling narrative of the Council as an aggiornamento of openness to modern Liberalism and not the aggiornamento of a prophetic engagement and critique. Seen in this light, Pope Francis is a useful tool for the progressives in that bigger project, regardless of his stated faithfulness to the Tradition. He is useful so long as papal authority is required in order to undermine or even destroy episcopal authority. This explains why, in the midst of all of this hoopla over a more “synodal” and less Roman Church, we see the contradiction of an increasing centralization of power in Rome as the progressives gradually gain control of the various Vatican dicasteries.
For example, we see the authority of the local bishop taken away when it comes to allowing for the Old Mass in Traditionis Custodes and its follow-up-up dubia, where Rome asserts authority even over the minutiae of what can and cannot be published about the Old Mass in parish bulletins. There is now a new Roman office for adjudicating the validity of various alleged supernatural phenomena such as Marian apparitions, which has been traditionally the provenance of the local bishop. And to cite one more example, among many possible candidates, there is the paradoxical spectacle of Rome micromanaging the machinations of the synodal process in order to insure, via the use of Roman authority, that all of our “listening” is properly curated.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that this is the agenda of Pope Francis. His words and official teachings show no evidence of this kind of institutional self-immolation where centralized authority is invoked in order to destroy centralized authority—or even, as in the extreme case of the German synodal way, the destruction of episcopal authority as such. What is puzzling in the extreme is that Pope Francis, despite the sound theology in his words, has empowered the progressive wing of the Church in very significant ways through his various episcopal appointments.
The prelates, priests, and theologians that Pope Francis apparently prefers and thus promotes, are cut out of the cloth of modern, performative transgression. The subjective categories of human “experience”, described in terms of a deeply psychologistic and sociologistic register, are now the privileged loci for where God’s Revelation takes place. They are often even viewed as standing in tension with, if not in outright contradiction to, the traditional loci of Incarnation, Scripture, and Tradition. It is not the traditional concept of the third person of the Holy Trinity that is being developed here, but rather a witch’s brew of Feuerbach, Freud, Kinsey, and pop psychology of the angel pin/dream catcher boutique shop variety. And this new “Church on the move” theology is the apotheosis of the modern, rootless, therapeutic self so ably described by Carl R. Trueman in The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, and as such has the double distinction of being both false and boring.
But it is also propagandistic, since this “Church on the move” theology is almost always tendentious in its census-taking of opinions, the selectivity of which leaves the distinct impression that apparently only highly secularized people whose lives are a train wreck of constant anxiety, uncertainty, and undifferentiated anger, speak for the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, this propaganda is emerging as an attempt at total narrative control via the redeployment of the slogans of the original failed Great Revolution back in the Sixties and Seventies. It also requires the airbrushing out of the enemies of the Great Revolution—Popes John Paul and Benedict, for instance—but in a manner that at least temporarily makes it seem that the Dear Leader, though surpassing them in his understanding of Vatican II, loved them very much.
An example of this airbrushing revisionism can be seen in some recent remarks from Cardinal Robert McElroy:
Pope Francis has made the pope and the papacy more immediate to people. It is not formal in the same way it had been before. Now, certainly Pope John Paul II had a wonderful way with people and engagement, but this is a different thing. This is speaking with groups, people, journalists, individuals, immediately, about the problems that exist in their lives and in the world and in the life of the Church. That sense of immediacy is a different kind of papacy. It is one of more direct encounter, person to person encounter, than it has been before.
I am so glad that a Cardinal of the Church finally had the nerve to point out that John Paul was still too “formal” in his dealing with people, and that he did not as a rule speak with personal immediacy to ‘journalists and people’ about the problems in the world or in their personal lives. These words are so flamboyantly fallacious that they could only have been written by either an Apparatchik devoted to the methodology of the “Big Lie” (my vote) or someone who was in a coma during the 25 years of John Paul’s pontificate. But it is necessary for the Great Revolution that the Dear Leader be shown in all respects superior, even to the point of not just a revision of history but a total rewriting of it altogether. That is not a tweaking of history. This is its destruction in the furtherance of the Revolution.
It is truly sad that the “case of Vatican II” and its narrative is being relitigated in this manner. The pontificates of John Paul and Benedict have given us a magisterially authoritative adjudication of the case. And if ecclesial sanity were in play then double jeopardy would apply and the case would be thrown out of court on those grounds. But there is a new chief justice on the bench, and he too wields the same judicial papal authority. So, here we are in court again.
But this is not good for the Church. Because a Church in a constant state of flux and suspension, a Church that is an endlessly open debating society, will eventually define itself into irrelevance.
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.
We read: “… a Church that is an endlessly open debating society, will eventually define itself into irrelevance.”
Or, is the Church devolving or evolving into a reptilian sorta thing? Take the relevance of the chameleon (species: trioceros melleri). This critter is able to change his colors too, also in order to blend with his environment. But, then there’s the complication that the chameleon can rotate his eyes in opposite directions at the same time. He can look “backward” and “forward” simultaneously! Sort of like ressourcement and aggiornamento!
But a feat beyond the skill set of progressive theologians who do neither, while contemplating their navel. As for the politics of the binocular chameleon, one suspects that he (sorry, again, about this gender microaggression!) would blend with the deep- and far-sighted (both) Winston Churchill who in 1940 admonished the House of Commons thusly: “If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future.”
Take that, species: progressivisticus!
Thanks for this timely & well-reasoned critique, dear Larry.
“But it is necessary for the Great Revolution that the Dear Leader be shown in all respects superior, even to the point of not just a revision of history but a total rewriting of it altogether. That is not a tweaking of history. This is its destruction in the furtherance of the Revolution.”
For some reason John 8:43-44 came to mind. “Why do you not understand what I (Jesus Christ) say? It is because you cannot accept My word. You are from your father the devil, and you chose to do your father’s desires. . . . When he lies he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
Resembling Covid 19 surging out of Wuhan in 2022, this darkness of deception is erupting out of Rome in 2023, as Larry’s article well demonstrates. Ecclesial deception has access to a long-established path for global dissemination. Around the world, how many faithful Catholics have a sufficiently robust relationship with The Holy Trinity as to enable them to recognize the lies and remain uncorrupted?
Ever in The Way, The Truth, & The Life; love & blessings from marty
An affecting message from your pen. Yet, a more and more common concern amongst faithful churchmen today!
All the same, we are more than conquers as Christ has given us the power of prayer and the spirit of truth to guide us. We are further assured that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.
We are being tested by the Lord and it is not easy. A man like Benedict brought clarity and fidelity to the task yet, his excellence may have lulled us into somnolence, asking too much of him and too little of ourselves?
2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
Matthew 10:16 “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Matthew 7:15-20 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn-bushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. …
Ezekiel 22:27 Her princes in her midst are like wolves tearing the prey, shedding blood, destroying lives to get dishonest gain.
Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.
While disagreements amongst men are as prevailing as breathing, we know that these obstacles are from the evil one (Satan) and we are aware of his destructive wiles.
God bless you as you strive to be part of the solution and a faithful soldier to be relied upon.
It helps if Christian thinkers, like you, understand what has distorted the theological thinking of many current church leaders, both Catholic & Protestant.
William P. Alston gives an excellent critique of the loose thinking that subtends much of the theological training of current hierarchs. See: ‘Historical Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels’, chapter 8 in ‘Behind’ The Text: History & Biblical Interpretation, edited by Bartholomew, Evans, Healy & Rae.
John W. Cooper has provided a comprehensive & fascinating study of the destructive panentheistic fallacies of ‘Process Theology’ that have formed the anti-Apostolic (“all before Francis were in nappies”) trend in much of the current pope’s ecclesiology. See: Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers, Baker Academic, 2006.
This exposure of the basic errors of the very popular heretic, Teilhard de Chardin SJ, are particularly relevant to the Church’s current challenge to truth.
My own humble efforts try to show how the basic problem is in their emasculation of our tradition of Perfect Being Theology, in their attempts to find reconciliation with secular scientific discoveries. In contrast, I show we CAN retain the fullness of Perfect Being Theology (as in The New Testament) without compromising scientific factuality (as fundamentalists tend to do) if we work up from the divine revelation that “God is love!” to an understanding of all of spiritual & physical existence as an ethical encounter with Divine Love, from alpha to omega. See: Ethical Encounter Theology: An Inter-Disciplinary Consonance, free on the Web.
The ‘progressivist’ emasculation of The New Testament witness of Jesus Christ & His Apostles proves to have been unnecessary & falsely based. Ethical Encounter Theology shows how there is at least one way for us to stay fully engaged with science, yet fully engaged with the truth of what The Holy Spirit provided to the 9 authors of the 27 texts of The New Testament.
We don’t need an heretical ‘process’ or other ‘panentheistic’ approach to enable us to stay faithful to BOTH the discoveries of science & our heritage of Christian Perfect Being Theology. That is what Pope Francis & his theological advisers SHOULD be teaching rather than teaching that we Catholics need to trade in New Testament truth (& our souls!) so as to harmonize with what they take to be scientific understanding.
How achingly sad when believers throw away their souls in the mistaken belief that anti-Apostolic heresy is a logical necessity of the factual circumstances.
Pray everyone. Keep praying for divine revelation for our leaders.
Always in the grace & mercy of King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
What a fascinating venue CWR is. It attracts able writers and comments from the faithful lovers of Christ! It has caused me to grow in my faith and consider the views of others on topics where we may differ!
Problems and falsehoods that have beset the protestant denominations have now come calling at the Church of Rome. Disquietude is palpable and so it should be. The Lord sent men of caliber such as Benedict and JPII and yet, He also sent the incumbent See of Rome.
There is little to add to your precis, you and others deeply care.
Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”
1 Kings 3:9 Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?”
Eternal blessings as you proclaim our Lord and Saviour.
To Carl O, et al:
We can dispute and bandy ad infinitum, ostensibly, it gets us nowhere! All the same, God’s word is something special. Would He lead us astray? Did He lay down His life so that we might ignore His work on the Cross? Let each person grapple with what he says to His creation.
Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
1 Corinthians 8:6 Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Ephesians 6:10-17 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, …
God bless each and everyone who proceeds to CWR for peace, knowledge and wisdom.
Yes! “It is because you cannot accept My word. You are from your father the devil…” Our Lord, who could have come to save us in any imaginable way, came through Mary. We can only conclude that this was the most perfect way to reach us and to glorify His Father, else He would have done it differently.
St. Louis de Montfort is quite clear: we honor Our Lord’s choice and proceed by the shortest means possible when we draw closer to the Son through the Mother. But there is more to Our Lady than even this.
St. Maximilian Kolbe says that Mary as “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” does not come close enough to the reality of who Our Lady is. No. He argues that as the Son became manifest in Jesus, it is as if the Holy Spirit became manifest in Mary!
Therefore, given our extraordinary times, is it not paramount that we listen to what She is saying in places like Medjugorje?
As Dr. Chapp so rightly observes, the faithful are in a uniquely difficult situation. We must rise up and stand at the Cross with Mary!
Well said, dear ‘St George’.
John the Beloved Apostle & protector of our Most Blessed Mother Mary reports in Revelation 12:17b, that Mary’s children are those who obey the commandments of God, testify to the Good News of her Son, Jesus Christ, & are persecuted by the devil.
Those who are suffering cognitive dissonance, caused by the current pope can take heart that their obedience to God’s commandments & faithful witness to Christ are the fruit proving they are among Mary’s children; even when they are being persecuted by those in Rome who are taking up the devil’s deceptive works.
Also let’s take heart from 1 John 3:8b “The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.” Let all sincere Catholic Christians rest assured that every deception coming from misguided hierarchs will be destroyed. “Here is a call for the endurance & faith of the saints!”
Stay strong in the love of The Lamb; blessings from marty
As usual, you have explained the current situation clearly and full. One thing the so-progressives [progressing to what and to where] in their attempt to undermine the influence of Mary the Mother of God is the astonishing Miracle of the Sun, witnessed by thousands. In my person experience, it is Mary who will lead us out of the mess we are in and, as usual, there will always be a saving remnant of faithful Catholics, under the influence of the Holy Spirit and Mary Mother of God, who will guide and protect those who are seeking the Truth.
When you and others refer to “Mary Mother of God” and her intercessory power, is it a fair question to ask, what scriptural reference should we look to for affirmation of this significant statement?
1. Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Mary is the Mother of God.
It’s that simple. Really.
So, which of those do you deny?
Thank you Carl. The simplicity of your argument makes sense. Yet, is there more to consider?
The purpose of Jesus was to take on flesh and to die as a sacrifice for sin. For God so loved the world…
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
Revelation 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.
Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
1 John 1:1-2 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—
These things are said of Jesus. His blessed mother was and is highly regarded and yet, her role was to bear and nurture Him. His best council would have come from His heavenly father.
Luke 1:48 For he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
Luke 2:19 But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart.
God bless you,
Begs the question, Brian Young, if you could understand Scripture properly and when you did if you would receive and accept it.
You might feel, I shan’t have too much to be concerned about from this Elias Galy’s comment. But I say you do. For there is another problem besides the begging the question, the problem of what recoils on your head. For God warned against the way of attesting Scripture when it suits you and then attesting the contrary when that suits you, with and without Scripture.
I went ahead a little. Your begging the question in the first place is enough for a damnation irrespective of anything else recoiling on your head.
If you ask God rather than CWR or myself, He might actually show you.
Proud Protestant Brian Young:
In your disingenuous response to Carl, you write the following:
1. “The simplicity of your argument makes sense. Yet, is there more to consider?”
2. “The purpose of Jesus was to take on flesh and to die as a sacrifice for sin. For God so loved the world…”
3. “These things are said of Jesus. His blessed mother was and is highly regarded and yet, her role was to bear and nurture Him.”
Regarding number 1, there is no more to consider regarding the basic reality that Mary is the Mother of God, but even asking the question shows a deliberate unwillingness to accept the reality that Carl set forth. Moreover, it also reveals your disdain for the fact that Mary is the Mother of God, and this is further evidenced by your further comments that seek to diminish her ongoing role as the Mother of God.
With respect to number 2, Jesus did indeed come to die for our sins, but His resurrection was also an essential part of this mission. Moreover, He also came to establish His One True Church, which is only the Catholic Church.
And with respect to number 3, good and honest people recognize that the Blessed Virgin Mary not only exercised the role of being a mother to Jesus during His time on earth; she also has a never-ending intercessory role on behalf of faithful followers of her Son. She is more than just highly regarded; she is properly venerated as the Queen of Heaven who is mother to all the faithful. Indeed, she is the greatest Saint in Heaven. In addition, she was immaculately conceived and as such, she is also properly and lovingly referred to as the Immaculata.
To cap off this attempt to disabuse you of your many faulty notions, here is a fine quote from Holy Scripture that is conspicuously absent from your quotes that, like all your other quotes in your comments, are always taken from an illegitimate bible:
Luke: 34 – 35:
“and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother,
“Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against
35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also),
that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”
Simeon’s words to Mary illustrate how she will be INTIMATELY LINKED with her Son’s redemptive work. She, too, will suffer immensely, and as this suffering is part of Our Lord’s redemptive work, it will also pave the way for the thoughts of many to go through her as well as part of her intercessory role as ordained by God. Alas, proud sola scriptura advocates give up their sola scriptura claim in this regard by denying the plain and only legitimate meaning of Simeon’s words simply because they do not support their heretical beliefs.
“Thank you Carl. The simplicity of your argument makes sense. Yet, is there more to consider?”
It makes sense because it is true.
And the KEY issue is NOT Mary: It is Jesus. Is He God or not?
If He is God, then Mary, his mother, is the Mother of God.
Yes, the Son (the Word, the Logos) is eternal; actually He, as Second Person of the Trinity, is outside time, for He created time: “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” (Jn 1:3).
But the man Jesus did not exist from all of eternity. He was conceived in time, by the power of the Holy Spirit. As the Catechism summarizes well:
And one of those many defenses was against the errors of Nestorius, who was a priest and bishop! Again, the Catechism, and note what is says about Mary:
So, again, completely logical, completely biblical, completely in keeping with divine revelation.
So, Brian: Why do you balk at it? Because (1) you don’t understand it? Or because (2) you think it is “too Catholic”? Or, because (3) you think it is contrary to Scripture.
If #1, just admit you misunderstood. I did so, decades ago. Because truth demands humility. If #2, then you have to explain why you believe the Bible is the Word of God, when you wouldn’t even have a Bible without the Catholic Church? And, if #3, then you are somehow adhering to heretical beliefs.
It’s that simple.
There are a lack of reply buttons in this thread, but Mr. Olson is entirely correct in his syllogistic approach.
Yet one thing I especially cherish in looking back on my conversion process from atheism to Catholicism is that any truth about God and what God desires that we understand is always simple and complex simultaneously. God loves irony and paradox because it undermines our vanity and softens our resistance.
I was in love with the story of the Blessed Mother’s appearance to Bernadette even before I fully abandoned my atheism as a pro-life atheist. I suspected that a profound truth was being conveyed to humanity by how she identified herself: “I am the Immaculate Conception.” This was not only to confirm a newly affirmed Church doctrine. It was an embryonic warning to the ominous future of humanity. The realization for God’s plan on this earthly plane of existence does not begin at birth but at our conception, which is a sacred event. And the Mother of God was and is preserved from original sin, an insight implicit but not limited to the limitations of scriptural revelation, yet an insight for which scriptural revelation promises and admonishes the followers of Christ to allow themselves to be receptive.
The lack of reply options on this thread does make it awkward. Thank you for your perspective. I mentioned to Carl O that I wouldn’t pursue the topic because it appears to bring too much disquietude and that is not my goal. Yet if someone specifically asked me to continue, it would be a consideration.
Your shared personal experience is important and valued.
God bless you,
“Yet if someone specifically asked me to continue, it would be a consideration.”
Yes, Brian: Continue by indicating why you have a problem with this basic, Scriptural logic:
1) Jesus is God.
2) Mary is the mother of Jesus.
3) Mary is the mother of God.
With such an invite, how could I not take up cudgel an carry on!
1) We are to worship God alone. jesus is fully God [the Son]
2) Mary refers to herself as a servant of the Lord. Nowhere in scripture does it cite her as Queen of Heaven.
3) Mary bore God Incarnate. God is eternal and not created and we know Mary was created.
4) We are to respect Mary, not to worship her, or to put her on the same level as God.
5) God has provided an intercessor, the bible tells us He is Jesus Christ the Lord.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Colossians 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Hebrews 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
1 Timothy 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
Mark 3:31-35 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
Luke 8:19 Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd.
“1) We are to worship God alone. jesus is fully God [the Son]”
Yes. Correct. Catholics don’t worship Mary. Recognizing that Mary is the Mother of the Incarnate Word (that is, God) is not worship.
“2) Mary refers to herself as a servant of the Lord. Nowhere in scripture does it cite her as Queen of Heaven.”
Well, we’re talking about her as Mother of God, not Queen of Heaven. But, of course, since she is the Mother of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, it follows that she is indeed Queen. (You do believe she is heaven, right?)
“3) Mary bore God Incarnate. God is eternal and not created and we know Mary was created.”
Yessssss. Correct. But Jesus is God–and Jesus (a man) had a beginning; that is, he was conceived. This is all “stuff” addressed in the many early ecumenical councils. That is why, several comments ago, I specifically called attention to this paragraph in the Catechism, which quotes from the early councils:
Again (this is vital): Mary is not called the Mother of God because she, outside of time, somehow “birthed” the Trinity. No, she is the Mother of God because she gave birth to the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, in time and space and history. Hence the Church’s teaching about the hypostatic union, and that Jesus is fully God, fully man, etc.
“4) We are to respect Mary, not to worship her, or to put her on the same level as God.”
Catholics do not worship Mary (again, here we are dealing with typical anti-Catholic falsehoods). Nor is she at the same level as God. However, she was chosen to be the mother of the Incarnate Word and Savior. Again (I’ll say it once again): this is about Who Jesus is: God. Again, this is theology 101.
“5) God has provided an intercessor, the bible tells us He is Jesus Christ the Lord.”
Thank you Carl:
You will receive no accolades from me though.
It is important to know what God says on any matter so that we understand.
John 2:4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
Luke 11:27-28 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
Luke 2:51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.
Luke 1:47-48 And my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
We don’r find queenly mention or especial intercessory power given to Mary. We find a humble, godly woman of noble character that doesn’t attribute more to herself than what God had given to her. Mary is a special gift to the world, she bore Jesus and raised him together with her husband Joseph. God chose her and did not need give the couple any extraordinary powers. She was a devout maiden that we will always call blessed and to be highly respected.
Brian Young you seem to be using the denial of the Catholic faith in a Catholic platform to promote a view of Mary to reconcile High Anglican and Low Anglican. Presumably through that you mean to achieve a grand uniting of Protestants. I note that your views here reflect some statements made by Pope Francis about the BVM that could suggest she is a super village auntie.
Brother Brian…so close and yet so far. Your write of Mary: “a humble, godly woman of noble character that doesn’t attribute more to herself than what God had given to her.” Indeed…
A too-long reflection:
FIRST, we consider the most alarming fact of history, that the Second Person of the Triune God—of His own infinite free will (mirrored in ourselves as “in His image and likeness”)—chose with infinite humility before the Father (!), to freely to enter into His own creation (!!!). Say what?
SECOND, and, that He did this through Mary who, with an incomparably like humility did NOT doubt this, but only questioned “how can this be?” More than simply “noble” (your demotion) and, but as you do say, attributing absolutely “nothing to herself other than what God had given her,” namely to be the mother: “blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Luke 1:42). Indeed! The mystery of Mary containing within her very self, Jesus Christ, who in turn, as eternally one with the Father, sustains her and all of creation in existence. Say what!
THIRD, the mystery of a fully transcendent and now fully immanent God—which some superficial sola scripturists deny like broken wind-up toys, continually spouting quotations of words while missing too much the self-disclosing mystery of “the Word made flesh” (John 1:14). A definition further protected from human misunderstanding by the historical fact, too, of Joseph—as the foster-father/husband of the Incarnation stirred not by himself, but by the Holy Spirit (namely, therefore, the Immaculate Conception).
FOURTH, victimized by all of our darkened powers of conceptualization, do we presume a too much of a separation between the material (as in us) and the spiritual? While not confusing the two, do we decline too much to recognize the pride (!) of even our (fallen) minds, when confronted by the mystery of the Incarnation and the Resurrection? Do we resist the living indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost) within the Church founded by Christ (!)—and which now in the world IS the Mystical Body of Christ with Christ himself as its head (e.g., Matthew 28:18-20)? Surely, we presume, Christ did not enter into the most inner stronghold of our fallenness, our freedom to misinterpret His fully gifted workings in our history and in Mary…but, said Christ to Peter, “Get they behind me, Satan” (Matthew 16:23)!
FIFTH, the premise of Sola Scriptura is actually an expression of our own complicating pride—unlike Mary—presuming to substitute for what is given. Given by the mysterious action of God, with absolutely nothing attributed (by Mary) to herself. Not even doubt. That IS the point—the uncomplicated simplicity of “fiat!” Yes, Mary, the “Mother of God,” nothing more and nothing less.
Perhaps the question behind the question being asked is if Mary, Mother of God, is a creature with the Created Order?
Perhaps. In some way. Having been raised in a Fundamentalist home/church/setting, I can say with absolute certainty that we rarely contemplated the mystery of the Incarnation, or followed the theo-logic of it to necessary conclusions. We were also unaware and unconcerned with nearly 2000 years of Christian thought, and so the early controversies over the Incarnation (and, thus, over Mary) were completely foreign to us. My conversation with Brian is the same one I’ve had with a number of Fundamentalists (and some Evangelicals). In ever single case, their reaction against Mary being the Mother of God is rooted in some form of anti-Catholic thought, influence, etc. None of them have thought through the simple logic involved.
Your question is important. Thank you! Some times the “Reply” function does not appear, allow me the liberty of replying to Carl O by means of your comment!
If I thank you or express well deserved appreciation for your work, it unleashes a furor of protest from the lions den. Consequently, no Barnabas like words for you!
To quote you “Mary being the Mother of God is rooted in some form of anti-Catholic thought, influence, etc. None of them have thought through the simple logic involved.” Unquote.
I am not anti-Catholic, you have the blinders on as do some others. If you said I speak against the precepts of Islam, Mormonism, Masonic nonsense, et al; then you would be correct.
Thus far, everyone who takes issue with my position speaks of church tradition or dogma, Well then, spell it out. Nebulous references do not make a strong case. You are not limited to these sources, lets see the beef between the buns.
Holy Scripture (at least as I read it) has yet to support the (Mary) contention of many on the pages of CWR . Let someone set out the argument via the Catechism and see its concordance with scripture! You probably know a good deal more about scripture than yours truly, so if you choose that route, good.
Someone may say, Brian make your case through scripture, and I am ready and willing to oblige. A number of verses have been offered, yet there are substantially more that can be applied.
God’s blessings as we attempt to honour Him,
“I am not anti-Catholic, you have the blinders on as do some others.”
Very well. Then you accept that saying Mary is the Mother of God is Scriptural, theologically sound, historically rooted, and completely logical?
“Holy Scripture (at least as I read it) has yet to support the (Mary) contention of many on the pages of CWR.”
You refuse to admit the basic logic, which is completely Scriptural:
1) Jesus is God (need I go through the verses for you?)
2) Mary is the mother of Jesus (ditto)
3) Mary is the mother of God.
Again, as the CCC explains, this is about the divinity and Incarnation of Christ.
Can you explain why this bothers you? And, please, saying that you cannot see it in Scripture is not holding water at all, so avoid it.
Brother Brian has said that he reads CWR in order to learn. Then, in the same breath the slippery mud-wrestler trots out yet again his same dense and circular argument of sola Scriptura. Perhaps he should be invited to keep learning, but also be confined from distracting the learning experience of others…
Why are we reminded of the cosmic analogy of the old brine in an old wine skin? Or, more expansively of the infinitely small Black Hole of astrophysics? The Black Hole–where the core is so dense that even light is sucked into the collapsing circle and not allowed to escape.
Think now of all those consumed electrons…and, surely, what is the finite number of electrons available to CWR for educational use on this website!
At the end of the First World War, even the secular sociologist Max Weber saw the future of a fully human universe collapsing: “Not summer’s bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness . . . .”
Including, it seems, the hardness of sola Scriptura individualists fighting Satan all by themselves. While the rest of us await to be tutored into their myopic and very self-assured vision.
Save a tree! Save an electron! Save a website!
Responding to response of Carl E. Olson MAY 22, 2023 AT 1:53 PM
We seem to be talking over one another’s head. Though we differ, I still have a great deal of respect for you and appreciate the opportunity of expressing my POV.
To paraphrase a former POTUS, “if you like your Marian convictions, you can keep your Marian convictions”. I have said a good deal (perhaps too much) so I will let the matter drop. Our salvation does not hinge on acceptance or rejection of the principle. My aim was to venerate Jesus, yet that is the aim of others who accept the Marian doctrine.
Your duties are demanding and God has you where you are needed!
“We seem to be talking over one another’s head.”
No, we’re not.
I’m making points that a 10-year-old atheist can understand.
You are playing games.
“And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.”
With reference to this crazy diversion into totally pointless but ridiculously passionate sabre-rattling by brothers Brian Young & Carl Olson & others. How rude is it for you all to squabble like barnyard cockerel’s; really unedifying & disrespectful to Larry Chapp & his critically important discussion of the lies emanating from Rome & the abominable heresies currently being hatched there.
Hell throws a ‘welcome home party’ when Catholics & Protestants open up ancient wounds that should have long-ago been healed by mutual Christian Love & understanding. Where is the “defer to one another” in all of this.
A few of the comments verge on heretical extremes of Mariolatry. Our Most Blessed Mother Mary is weeping over that and over the insults heaped by certain ‘catholics’ on poor, Word-loving Brian.
Those trained in truth & logic would probably assess Brian, on the face of what has been published here, as having marginally presented the more calm, charitable & scripturally-sound responses.
Yet, of course, Brian Young is completely wrong, because he has neglected to defer to an impeccable authority in The Word.
The beloved Apostle John, who was the Christ-appointed earthly Protector of our Most Blessed Mother Mary has made plain in his visions recounted in Revelations 12, that Mary is indeed The True Queen of Heaven, for she wears the 12-star crown of all Israel & of the 12 Apostles & of the 12 gates of The New Jerusalem, which is the Holy Bride of Mary’s Son, Jesus Christ, who is also Son of God & our Saving Eternal King. No one gets more Royal than THAT, dear Brian!
Think: we true believers are incorporated in the Flesh & Blood of King Jesus Christ; He is our Head, we are all (small) parts of His Body. It is because of this that we’re guaranteed eternal life; for, at The Marriage Feast of The Lamb, Jesus will marry His Bride, The New & True Jerusalem (a City whose architect and builder is God). As parts of His Body, we will find our eternal home in that Glorious City. In Christ we will be eternally wedded to the most beautiful & holy of all conceivable places.
Do the so-called ‘progressives’ in Rome understand that eternal life, wedded in Christ to The New Jerusalem, is the goal of all true human progress?
Mary’s crown is eternally unique. It totally obliterates the many pagan ‘queens of heaven’ pretenders who’ve briefly strutted on the stage of history. Yet, Protestants are quite right to warn us Catholics (& Orthodox) about recrudescences of pagan polytheisms. They have often happened & have the tendency to erupt at any time.
In conclusion: (1) Our Most Blessed Mother Mary is THE Queen of Heaven; no argument. (2) Brian is only doing his duty as a God-fearing believer by cautioning us against the possibilities of Catholic idolatry from excessive apportioning of the Glory of The Creator Holy Trinity to our beloved and most blessed Mother Mary, who (crucially) is a creation of God, like us.
The New Testament has made matters perfectly plain. Please, everyone, with all respects let’s cut the contentions & get back to the serious business that Professor Larry Chapp has laid before us.
Ever in the grace & mercy of Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
“…and her intercessory power”
Amply exhibited at Cana.
Take dive into Sacred Scripture. Its economy should not mislead. Action, presence are of most importance.
The Incarnation of the Logos would never have transpired were it not for the consent of a simple faithful girl in Nazareth, chosen before time to be the Mother of God by God.
Of those who parse Scripture like Brother Brian, one stumbling block might be the universal difficulty to consent more fully to the self-revealed and new math of God…
As in the unity of the Trinity: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Not simply a divinity with three faces, as with modalism or 1 = 3.
Or, as in the unity of Christ who is two natures in one Person. As in 1 + 1 = 1.
And not as in the Divinity inhabiting a package of alien human stuff as in Monophysitism. As in 1 = 1 + 0.
Nor as in the Divinity orbiting around, but detached from human nature, as in Nestorianism. As in 1 alongside 1 = (schizophrenic Jesus Christ)…and, therefore, as in Mary as the mother of Jesus, but not the mother of Christ.
Instead, and because Jesus Christ, too, is a unity (indeed, the unity of all in All! “Through Him, with Him and in Him…”), then Mary is the natural mother of the supernatural and one Jesus Christ—the “Mother of God”! The undeniable consequence of the undeniable oneness of Jesus Christ. Such that Jesus Christ is NOT an unknown hybrid, a fused or mixed inbetweener, as if in deformity of the Triune One or Trinity, we now have a Quaternary, as in 1 + 1 + 1 + x = 4.
By what great Mystery, then, is our shared human nature elevated into (!) the divine nature of the Trinity (!!!). Such that we are to become “new persons” (see St. Paul) and giftedly destined to see God face to face? And such that, in the meantime, we are invited to already live the totally gifted and sacramental life? Eucharistically—that is, because of the unity of Jesus Christ—the consecrated host is both the body & blood AND the soul & divinity of Jesus Christ. The very words of the WORD Himself, as found in Scripture, e.g., Luke 22:19, or 1 Cor 11:24-29 (and therefore, CCC 1374).
It’s almost as if Jesus Christ founded a Church which is Eucharistically “one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Not 1 + 1 + 1 = 30,000 sects and counting. Nor even the fully Islamic “word made book” vs “the Word made flesh.”
Remember, Mister Brian, St. Gabriel at the Annunciation to the Blessed Mother said our Blessed Lord would inherit the Kingdom of David. (Luke 1:32)
The king’s mother was his queen. If you wanted a favor from the king, it was common practice to ask his mother. Having said that, when Solomon inherited the throne of David, the following happened:
“So Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was firmly established. 13 Then Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. And she said, “Do you come peaceably?” He said, “Peaceably.” 14 Then he said, “I have something to say to you.” She said, “Say on.” 15 He said, “You know that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel fully expected me to reign; however the kingdom has turned about and become my brothers, for it was his from the LORD. 16 And now I have one request to make of you; do not refuse me.” She said to him, “Say on.” 17 And he said, “Pray ask King Solomon–he will not refuse you–to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife.” 18 Bathsheba said, “Very well; I will speak for you to the king.” 19 So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. 20 Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.” (1 Kings 2:12-20)
I hope that helped, Mister Brian. God bless you!
Thank you for your blessings and desire to bring understanding!
Proud Protestant Brian Young:
Before getting to your response to another attempt by Carl to educate you at a level that even you should be able to grasp, note that there Does Not Need to be a Scriptural Reference for Everything we know about God and the proper worship of Him. Revelation is not limited to the Scriptures, and the Scriptures themselves do not make any such claims about themselves.
As such, only weak-thinking, sola scriptura people constantly ask for a scriptural reference to support X belief, and they ignorantly conclude that if there is not such a reference, then the belief is wrong. The hypocrisy is quite laughable in going outside Scripture while insisting that others stay within Scripture. LOL.
Can anyone say it better than God? If we quote Him and look to His council can we go wrong?
“God in council”, is that a fact now.
Yea verily, Brian, thy simple comment complicates and perplexes immensely! I mean, your reference to “His council.” Speaketh thee then of the 21 “councils” of the Catholic Church? If not, then what, pray tell?
Perhaps thee speaketh instead of “counsel?”, but how can we ever know? Ah, we might simply ask thee what thee meant! Simple enough, and surely you would agree with the obvious…
But, then, when the Scripture itself is interpreted in contradictory ways, why not also and consistently ask the author of Scripture, i.e., the ongoing tradition of the early writing members of the perennial Catholic Church (a tradition which gives us Scripture), what was/is meant by words not “dictated” but rather “inspired” by God and written by human hands?
Immensely perplexing, your “council” or “counsel”?
To be consistent, those who want to “quote” a book “dictated” by God—rather than inspired—are free to leave the Bible and leaf Islam’s Qur’an, said to be dictated in Arabic.
Peter and Elias:
The council of our triune God is unsurpassed (in His advice). Cadets suggest majoring in the secondary. Where are scriptural references that refute my position. It seems folly to leave out the God of the Bible when He is the one the three of us worship!
Bring the Marian doctrine and let’s see how it partners with Scripture. Or bring any church dogma you wish, outline it and let’s see how it matches up with the unassailable word of God.
How can we fight the enemies of the church without God? If we don’t know what He says, how can we invoke His guidance?
John 15:3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you.
1 Peter 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
We are to test everything in matters of faith and direction. I am not your enemy, Satan is our joint enemy and we fight him with prayer and God’s word. The Lord Jesus defeated Satan at the cross, we do our part by following His guidance during this time of our personal struggles.
God bless you both,
The Trinity is not a “council”. The Catholic faith does not teach such a thing -that it is a council; nor is it in the Bible.
Neither is the Trinity a “council” that you can lay claim to so as to lasso everyone as brothers. It doesn’t lash together like that and it is not in the Bible.
What strange anguish you live Brian Young. Or, if you will, what mutant peace you have made for you bed-fellow in your own “Biblical faith”.
You are using CWR to propound a High Anglican thought while claiming to be at odds with Anglicanism bearing a supposed gift of softness for Catholics without which they supposedly can not be complete Catholics and supposedly can’t understand Scripture fully.
By adding in the name of the Mother of God you increase your perfidy.
Responding to Elias Galy regarding his MAY 22, 2023 AT 4:07 AM comment.
Is not a council of the Lord, a fellowship of the Holy Trinity?
You have become my psychic guru! How have I been accorded such an honour? You mention “strange anguish”, my my, what folly you propound. Instead, I have the peace that passes all understanding in Jesus Christ our Lord.
I am using CWR to learn. Are the writers not insightful and godly? Further, CWR invites comments.
Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
2 Peter 1:19-21 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?
You suggest I don’t understand scripture! So then, your task is to refute what I present by using scripture as a corrective.
Let us remind ourselves that the Catechism advises us that Holy Scripture is the epitome, the ultimate source for our spiritual discernment.
In the peace and blessing that is Jesus Christ.
Neither Scripture nor Catechism says that.
You’re displaying not seeking answers.
The stunt you pulled with Benjamin P was wrong.
Yes PF uses the authority of the papacy to undermine the authority of the papacy.
Yes personnel is policy.
Yes … do not listen to what he says; watch what he does.
Yes the sin-nods are designed and manipulated to destroy the magisterium.
Yes an apostate pope was predicted so the ‘apparitions’ must be destroyed.
Yes the fruits(clergy?) of Vat II makes it look like a very bad tree.
May God have Mercy on His suffering Church as it endures another Passion. How long must she tread the painful Via Dolorosa, reviled by the blood lust and curses of her enemies, as She approaches Golgotha?
This is a good article; as a 16 year convert to the Catholic Church, it troubles me that clerics who are shepherds, behave more like hirelings who will abandon the sheep to pursue their own celebrity in a now pagan country. Our own bishop is a stickler for proper liturgy, but firmly in the progressive camp in every sense of the word. We have our own controversy involving the hiring of an open gay director of worship and his gay marriage. I do not understand Pope Francis’ appointments to positions of authority such as Holerich as synod realtor. Pope Benedict XVI is right about the church being smaller but more faithful, that it will be like starting over again. I suspect this is where we are, at the beginning of beginning again.
I did not read Cardinal Robert McElroy’s comment to be that Pope John Paul was ‘too’ formal, as Dr Larry Chapp felt he had to suggest here….but that Pope Francis was ‘less’ formal, by comparison. I love both styles of these Popes which I believe have been applied to great effect…each, to the Glory of God.
Quite a feat trying to separate Pope Francis from the radicals he has appointed and empowered.
You can’t separate those who are cut from the same thread.
Hopefully, the next Pope to be validly elected, and all those Bishops who have remained in communion with Christ, and all validly elected Popes, will do The Consecration Of Russia to Our Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Heart exactly as Our Blessed Mother requested, visibly separating the Counterfeit anti Church from The True Church Of Christ, which exists, Through, With, And In Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost.
An insightful analysis, as we have come to expect from Dr. Chapp!
Thank you for the article. I admire anyone who works to bring a synthesis together on difficult topics. If I may, I’d like to add to it some salient features that generally tend to get overlooked about V2. It’s best to look at the entirety of the counsel lest anything important be inadvertently omitted.
– There were 871 scholars of the church that in the 2 years preceding “the” counsel worked assiduously to craft 19 beautiful Schema that would guide the church (including her theology) into the “modern” world.
– These schema were suddenly and at the last minute TOSSED OUT by insistence from the Rhine Group. This group or radicals, arguably heretics among them Hans Kung, a darling of the media, the church would later be stripped of his ability to teach and ban his books as heretical.
– A new off-the-cuff agenda had to be adopted (except for the Annibale Bugnini Schema on the revision of the TLM).
– The only Bishops, i.e. Periti/”Experts”, that were ready for the sudden turn of events were the most LIBERAL. These had been dreaming of getting their grubby hands on the church and “re-imagining” her in their own image since the 1950’s.
– From the outset, dear Pope John 23rd lost control of his counsel and began fretting its outcome. Because the counsel was PASTORAL and not doctrinal, NOTHING about the theology of the church was in question, nor should have been in question. THE MOST PRESSING issue at the time was the global rise and dominance of COMMUNISM; yet, regarding communism, there was not a single overtly expressed comment in condemnation from the counsel, rather a mere “footnote” with reference to all the previous Popes of the church who condemned it.
Looking back at the DAMAGE that has been done to the church, the counsel was an abject FAILURE at best and, at worse, AN ATTEMPT TO DESTOY THE CHURCH.
A mere few weeks ago, Cardinal McElroy commented that the synod would give the liberals the avenue they needed to finish the revolution they began in the church at Vatican II. We must keep our eyes on where God is growing HIS church. While the numbers themselves witness to an ever deadening and lifeless, futureless NO church; the Orders and Societies that have remained true to the Latin Mass and have insisted on remaining distinctly CATHOLIC are growing exponentially. Our dear Pope, Steward of the Church, is wringing his hands in worry. The more he pits himself against Catholicism in its most loyal manifestation, the more he reveals an agenda quite in conflict with the health and well-being of Catholicism. (Many of my comments above have been taken from the writings of Michael Davies. A much better and thorough-going analysis of which can be found within his trilogy, “Cramner’s Godly Order”, “Pope John’s Connsel”, “Pope John’s New Mass”.)
About the original schemas being tossed out, other reports are that there were seventy (rather than “19”). And, that the pace-setting first one had to do with Revelation–whether it was sufficient to routinely quote from earlier Vatican documents, or whether it was necessary in the unhinged modern world, instead, to refer more deeply and directly to Jesus Christ as the alarming event of the Incarnation interrupting into human history (the centerpiece of “ressourcement”).
Supplying more detail, and an object lesson, on starting-over with the schema on Revelation, Emeritus Benedict XVI (as the peritus to Cardinal Frings and as the primary author of the rewrite) comments that the irony is that it was St. John XXIII, himself, who then opened the door to all those votes for rewrites, by his dealing with a standoff on the first schema to be reviewed. Still in November 1962, John XXIII broke the tie vote, such that this lead-off document on Revelation (and then almost inevitably the rest of the seventy) would be replaced, but not totally tossed since still cherry-picked as source material:
“The question being put to the vote [the Cardinal Frings presentation, written by Ratzinger] was very complicated. Those who wanted new things had to vote no. And those who wanted old things, had to vote yes. Anyway, it was a very close vote. Those who won were those who wanted to stay with the original schema. So from a legal perspective there was a very slight majority in favour of maintaining the first draft of the text. But then Papa Giovanni [himself! John XXIII] saw that the majority was too thin to be viable, and decided that the vote should be reopened […]” (“Benedict: Last Testament in His Own Words,” in Seewald, 2016, p. 133).
Benedict defends the needed rewrite but also, yes, regrets, the disastrous outcome that later transpired. He writes:
“Cardinal Frings later had intense pangs of conscience. But he always had an awareness that what we actually said and put forward was right [basing the schema on the fact of Jesus Christ, rather than on letterhead documents about Christ], and also had to happen. We handled things correctly, even if we certainly did not correctly assess the political consequences and the actual repercussions. One thought too much of theological matters then, and did not reflect on how these things would come across” (“Benedict: Last Testament,” 2016, p. 142).
The difference, then, between the “real” Council of the Documents and the “virtual” spirit of Vatican II (Benedict’s oft-stressed distinction) was the front-steps media influence mostly through Hans Kung who apparently did not take part in the Council drafting. Benedict refers to how, during the Council, this media game was still a new and underappreciated wild card.
Yes, bad outcomes, but also some important details about the Council itself and life in the zoo, from someone who was actually there.
An intelligent assessment will find that “an endlessly open debating society, will eventually define itself into irrelevance”. Can the engineers of the never ending Synod on Synodality not know this?
Airbrushing his two great predecessors away to make it seem our “Dear Leader, though surpassing them in his understanding of Vatican II, loved them very much”(Chapp at his sarcastic best). I refuse to crow over this, but it became evident early on this was coming. Did it require special genius? No. Just good memory. Consiglieri Fr Spadaro SJ editor La Civiltà Cattolica had said at the start the plan was to create change to the extent that it couldn’t be reversed. Mentor Milan Archbishop Card Carlo Maria Martini originator of the dirty dozen St Gallen Group, inventor of the concept of a synodal Church, engaged eternally in discussion on doctrine, to effectively and radically change doctrine was ecstatic that disciple Card Jorge Bergoglio was raised to the pontificate.
What’s occurring, as Chapp suggests, is a sanctifying revival of the radical reformists of the Sixties. Their theological justification is perceived irrelevance in a world that has advanced scientifically leaving Church doctrine factually wanting. Why the overwhelming visual evidence of the accommodation of homosexuality [in all its varied, growing LGBT forms], the more ambivalent disciplinary approach to the Eucharist?. Why then the extreme orthodox condemnations [on transgender] coming from his Holiness? Granting benefit of the doubt that Pope Francis believes this a best, valid approach to a perceived irrelevant Church message, is it beyond reason to acknowledge that highly orthodox orations offset by clearly heterodox structural, impending doctrinal change leaves the onlooker bedazzled, believing the Vatican and Francis are entirely orthodox, that the Synodal discussions of settled doctrine, the deposit of faith itself cannot possibly change things, despite changes occurring before their clouded eyes?
“Changes [to the Deposit of Faith] occurring before their clouded eyes” refers to policy and disposition, rather than formal pronouncements made to the entire Church. For those of us suffering doubts in the midst of palpable darkness, not one word of perennial Magisterial doctrine has been changed [my conviction is God won’t permit it now or in the future], rather it’s all being done by non binding remarks and suggestions. Hold fast to the Deposit of Faith and Apostolic tradition. Our faith is being tested like that of the early martyrs.
The cavalier wedge today is segregate praxis from orthodoxy. That is, to still affirm (or not deny) “the Deposit of Faith and Apostolic tradition,” while then pastorally exempting (!) sexual novelties against natural law and moral absolutes which now are, in pointed fact, an explicit part of the Magisterium.
To repeat, from Veritatis Splendor (1993): “This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church [!] has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this [‘moral’] teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment necessary in practical and cultural situations which are complex and even crucial” (n. 115).
Take that, upstart red-hat illiterate and poster-child Jimmy Martin!
Thou art totally upstaged by a sainted pope a full thirty years ago, not to mention the past two millennia and counting.
Yes. It’s a seductive format. If we accept Francis in Amoris the benefit of the doubt goes to the penitent. John Paul’s Veritatis Splendor stands in stark contention.
A comment on human sexuality deserves mention here, since there are views expressed that speak of the conjugal act as inextricably linked to sin. If what was meant is original sin that doesn’t inextricably attach sin to the conjugal act. There were also references to John Chrysostom regarding the conjugal act, as it is practiced, as being a result of that original sin. That somehow it’s suggested Man would multiply by some dissimilar ethereal means. These are opinions that have no scriptural, theological basis, nor are they the result of sound reason.
Nakedness prior to the Fall from grace was entirely natural. That is scripturally, and reasonably evident. Insofar as sin and the conjugal act, St Thomas Aquinas begins by an affirmation of the good attached to the pleasure experienced. Where sin appears is when the couple, or either party engages in the act solely for the pleasure. That of itself detaches the love one should have for their spouse without which the virtues are diminished or absent.
When spouses are gifted with all the truth and knowledge of the Holy Spirit the act is a good and holy exercise of our humanness.
See the “inextricable” references here in the comments with today’s date.
Elias I’m not certain I understand what you mean by inextricable sin except for salvation. The potential to sin is there due to original sin. Although grace intervened with the saints through the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The conjugal act in a sacramental marriage is not necessarily tainted. We’ve had many saintly marriages producing saints. Perhaps you have a sense of meaning I’m not aware of that may be compatible.
When Christ gave His woes in Matthew 23 He said that the Pharisees “preach, but do not practice.” In Mark 7 He also speaks of Corban. Is it not the modernists who are trying to replace God’s commandments with their own man made traditions in the manner of Corban? An attempt to impose upon the entire Church the very practices of the Pharisees that Christ denounced.
Original sin did not just create potential to sin it condemned us. God stepped in a promised that it wouldn’t. I believe this is a basic teaching.
Elias, Original Sin, disobedience of God brought death to all mankind as its penalty. And with it loss of our filial relationship, and loss of grace. With that filial distancing from God Man suffers concupiscence, the tendency to sin.
And what you said here is correct, insofar as Christ promised that the penalty of eternal death [hell] would be rescinded if we obey his commandments, to wit, to love God through his Person in spirit and in truth.
Since the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Church and Christ’s presence in the sacraments, including marriage, our human acts, inclusive of the conjugal act, are sanctified insofar as His Holy Spirit lives within us.
Yes, fidelity in grace makes us true to Christ and forms us in Him and with Him we have the mastery of concupiscence AND temptation.
“He is useful so long as papal authority is required in order to undermine or even destroy episcopal authority. This explains why, in the midst of all of this hoopla over a more “synodal” and less Roman Church, we see the contradiction of an increasing centralization of power in Rome as the progressives gradually gain control of the various Vatican dicasteries.”
Ye, THANK YOU for pointing this out. And hence the almost idolatrous opining of prominent progressive Catholics on social media (and, I assume, in other places) that we must all agree with Pope Francis on everything, at all times, though they didn’t say that with the last two popes. Progressives and those of similar political ilk are very much in favor of strong, centralized power whenever they get the chance to wield it.
“His words and official teachings show no evidence of this kind of institutional self-immolation where centralized authority is invoked in order to destroy centralized authority…”
This isn’t the agenda of the progressives either? Francis and the progs are ok with centralized authority, and so is Latin ecclesiology.
If the Church is determined to falsify Herself (and the entire worldview upon which I have built my life up to now), then I wish She would just go ahead and get it over with so that I can move on. The rest of my life could certainly be easier and more pleasurable, even if it is meaningless. Yes, yes, I know, the gates of hell shall not prevail, etc., etc. I wish my faith were that strong.
Hello BXVI, if I can make a humble but massively sincere recommendation, please seek out a traditional Latin Mass and begin attending. My faith has been so deeply improved, so wonderfully enhanced, I simply can’t just tell you via this comment box. You’d HAVE to see my eyes, face and hear the sincerity in my voice. I’m a finally-found Catholic after having attended the Novus Ordo for the last 50-years. At this point, I can never go back to the NO Mass, so deeply impacted has been my faith experience.
There are many comments that could, and have been, made on what I would call this well written “intellectual’ Catholic article.
But I think of my in-laws who died about 12 years ago, having lived into their mid-nineties. They went to daily mass, received the sacraments, prayed the rosary every day, and more. They were very holy people. I am also sure that they never read a single page of any of the Vatican II documents, and never heard a homily preached on them.
I am thinking of the readings this Easter season – Jesus died for us, rose from the dead, repentance, Baptism, etc. The Catholic Church has a great richness, but is it being made too complicated for the average person in the pew?
We know that a large number of Hispanics of Central and South America have moved from Catholicism to evangelical protectionism. Might it be because of their simpler Christian message? Can we do the same thing, and also include the richness of the Mass and the sacraments?
In an essay on Christian Apologetics C.S. Lewis wrote, “A passage from some theological work for translation into the vernacular ought to be a compulsory paper in every Ordination exam.”
The Church is misdirected. https://www.ncronline.org/culture/book-reviews/playing-god-traces-history-catholic-conservatism-gone-extreme
Anyone who thinks the NCReporter is of value when it comes to the Church or the truth is misdirected.
You are kind.
Indeed. I recall reading some years back that the NCReporter was instructed that it could no longer present itself as a Catholic publication. Instead, an external commenter on things Catholic. Somewhere in the obscure fine print this factoid might appear, or might not.
Our Lady of Good Success, Lady Salete and Akita warned us about bad bishops. At Akita she told us “priests who venerate me will be opposed by their conferes”. No wonder the Vatican wants to take control of apparition approval away from local bishops and tries to discredit Fatima.
“What is puzzling in the extreme is that Pope Francis, despite the sound theology in his words, has empowered the progressive wing of the Church in very significant ways through his various episcopal appointments.” What l find extremely puzzling is that an intelligent man like Chapp is still puzzled about the real agenda of Bergoglio, contenting himself with merely pointing at the contradictions. When will the prudential exculpations finally stop?
The end goal of the atheist materialist overpopulation alarmists globalists is the objectification of the human person. Reordering beloved sons and daughters according to sexual desire/inclination/ orientation serves only to justify the engaging in of sexual acts that regardless of the actors or the actor’s desires , even if the actors are a man and woman united in marriage as husband and wife, deny The Sanctity of the marital act, within The Sacrament Of Holy Matrimony, as God intended and in denying the inherent Dignity of being, in essence, a beloved son or daughter, brother or sister, husband or wife, father or mother, by declaring the equality of sexual acts and sexual relationships, grounded in lust, we have exchanged God’s Truth for the ultimate lie, Love, which is rightly ordered to the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person as. Beloved son or daughter, brother or sister, husband or wife, father or mother, is devoid of every form of lust.
For those who remain sleeping in Gethsemane, Wake up!
“4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
Perfect Love does not divide, it multiplies, (Filioque), as in the Miracle Of The Loaves and Fishes.
May Our Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Heart Triumph Soon🙏💕🌷
A sober, probative contribution addressing a pressing reality. Whenever, wherever I run across Dr. Chapp’s work it is spot on.
Well, it’s not a mystery why our Church leadership and establishment, led by the establishment’s elected Pontiff, is trying to dismantle Christ’s teaching about sexual morality.
The reason is simple – they reject (or as to the indifferent, don’t care one way or the other about) the authority of Jesus regarding human sexual behavior: that goes for the Pontiff Francis, and apparently most Bishops, and certainly 90% of the “Catholic” university establishment, and probably most “baptized-Catholics,” and apparently a very large % of the remaining “weekly Mass goers.”
I note in the article that Mr. Chapp has not mentioned Pope Paul VI. This is because, in order to keep narrating V2 as if it is the “super-Council,” contemporary orthodox Catholic commentators (Mr. Weigel, etc) do not mention Pope Paul VI, as if he never existed, despite the fact that he is the main Pontiff presiding over the Second Vatican Council.
But…returning to today…
The Pontiff Francis is not a good shepherd, he does not imitate The Good Shepherd, and his voice is that of a false shepherd.
Among the pathologies exhibited by The Pontiff Francis is the pathology of the contemporary Jesuit cult: shorn of obedience to Christ, yet retaining their cult of obedience to their own earthly authorities, they have emerged as the complete anti-thesis of Christ:
A. Jesus declares: “I am the vine, you are the branches, apart from me you can do nothing.”
B. The Jesuit Cult Says: “We are the Ultimate Branch, the vine is passe, apart from the vine, we will redefine whatever we please, beginning with redefining Christ.”
Or as Father Robert Imbelli would put it, as he did generally about the Church establishment, in his essay (in Nova et Vetera if I recall correctly?): “They are decapitating the Body of Christ.”
That’s what’s happening, and that’s why Professor Farrow wrote, as transmitted here in CWR, to remind us of this: “It is Christ Jesus, not the Pontiff, who is the head of the Body of Christ.”
A good pair of reminders, Imbelli and Farrow, and likewise Fr. Gerald Murray, in these very dark and treacherous days of ours.
Jesus is our King. No one else.
An important message from your pen. Continued blessings of insight and helpfulness!
Jesus is indeed our King, and no one else. Likewise, the Catholic Church is the One and Only Church founded by Jesus our King. No other church. Those who wish to obey Jesus our King in the manner He prescribes are members of the Catholic Church. Those who tell Jesus that they know better than Him repeat Lucifer’s Non Serviam by refusing to be part of His Church. Instead, they are part of churches founded by mistaken humans or they assume that they are above all churches. Either way, they slap Jesus in the face by their refusal to follow Him as He requires He be followed.
Well put, dear brother ‘Chris in Maryland’,
“Well, it’s not a mystery why our Church leadership and establishment, led by the establishment’s elected Pontiff, is trying to dismantle Christ’s teaching about sexual morality.”
Mature Christians who are experienced in The Holy Spirit-given ministry of healings & deliverances understand the intimate symbiosis between the demonic & sexual immoralities like: lust, lasciviousness, pornography, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, incest, bestiality, etc.
Pope Francis & his coterie are informed by an heretical belief that sexual immoralities are simply part of a harmless spectrum of normal human psychology. In this they show their spiritual immaturity (they are still in their spiritual nappies). That would be a matter for them alone EXCEPT their eminent status in the Church means they are leading millions of souls into spiritual bondage.
When will Pope Francis and other Church leaders comprehend: “Be not yoked . . .”
For those of us Catholics who actually read The New Testament (clearly not Pope Francis & Co.), The Holy Spirit of God has made the ban on all sexual immorality crystal clear in 1 Corinthians 6:9-20. As always, God is protecting us from harm, not coercing us, nor depriving us of something good.
As in the days of Jesus’ earthly ministry, those trapped in the spiritual bondage of sexual sins have ONE WAY out of it. They must seek with all their heart to be filled with the Presence of Jesus Christ. Faith in the certainty of victory is needed as they persevere in incarnating God’s promises in their own bodies & minds.
When King Jesus fully reigns in our heart, we have the Sovereign solution.
Scandalously, the ministry of healings & deliverances is almost as scarce as hen’s teeth in most Catholic parishes. As if it were not needed . . !
[yet there are many faithful clergy & lay Catholics whose Holy Spirit giftings are being totally disregarded and remain atrophied and fruitless]
Not only flagrant sexual immoralities but every form of superstition, occultism, syncretism, witchcraft, freemasonry, & other evil spiritual oppressions flourish unchallenged among so many who still call themselves Catholics.
How disgusting when such as these attempt to proselytize you after Holy Mass. Yuck!
Jesus was incarnated to teach us & show us the way of true holiness; He gave Himself on the Cross so our sins could be forgiven; He resurrected to show us that death does not rule; He ascended and reigns so as to pour down The Holy Spirit on us, to gift us & make us fruitful for the mission of The Holy Trinity: the categorical destruction of the works of the devil – see: 1 John 3:8b.
What, then, does our current pope not understand about the Kerygma?
Ever in the love of The Lamb; blessings from marty
Taking inspiration from Mr. Olson’s defense of Mary with syllogistic argument, although with more than the usual three steps, I’ll simply say, regarding the idiocy of progressive moral theologians who have now struggled to integrate idiocy as the dominant Catholic narrative before the world for the last 60 years. (And longer)
The sex revolution preaches easy sex. Easy sex leads to unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies influences human thought to dismiss the humanity of the unborn. Dismissing the humanity of the unborn leads to their getting their skulls crushed. This makes God very angry. Only a complete idiot would fail to make these connections.
Only a complete idiot of a moral theologian so morally depraved for not making these connections for decades, and for refusing to make these connections, ought to be excommunicated, no matter how many thousands of them there are, no matter how famous they are. Even if they are prelates. This would get their attention. This would get the world’s attention. This would get the attention of the average lay Catholic who desires to believe in a Catholicism without morality.
Thank you for your encouraging words about my comment Marty.
One in Christ,
Thank you for your comments especially as regards then Cardinal Ratzinger. I had hoped that an updated “Ratzinger Report”, i.e. “Ratzinger Re-reports?”, would have been written prior to his having passed from this vale of tears. It would have been invaluable to get his perspective on how the issues then plaguing the church have changed (intensified?) since 1986. Especially salient would have been his updated take on the identity crisis of the clergy as well as the rise and steady ascendancy of the orders and societies faithful to the Latin Mass. Sadly, we now can never know of these things. He definitely seems to have “matured” from the suit wearing Peritis of the early counsel to the author of Summorum Pontificum.
He gave several book length interviews after the Ratzinger report to journalists most of which were published by Ignatius Press.
Look for “What it Means to be a Christian” (Ignatius, 2023). For an early overview: https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/what-is-christianity-a-guide-to-benedict-xvis-last-book
Benedict would not have released the included essays that are new before his own passing, so as not to fuel the notion that there are two popes. Also, there’s “The Muller Report” (Ignatius, 2017).
Thanks very much.
I hope that your charitable evaluation of Pope Francis is correct. But a competing, equally probable, and perhaps less charitable evaluation, is that Pope Francis’ “sound theology in his words,” is a clever protection that allows him to cover up for his empowering the progressive wing of the Church. If Pope Francis’ ‘theology in his words’ were not sound, he would lack any protection. And he would face a much stronger opposition from the orthodox wing of the Church, not only to his words but also to his actions.
I’m going with David Bonagura’s May 19 article, Can Catholicism Be Passed On Without Catholic Culture? The short answer is probably not. We need to rebuild a Catholic (counter) culture from the ground up.
“[T]he curve of history is on our side and our day will come.”
The curve of history:
“In the 80s, 37% of Dutch children were baptized in the Catholic Church, now it is less than 3 percent. 37 or 38 percent of civil marriages were solemnized in the Church [in the 1980s]; last year, fewer than 1% were. It is nothing less than an implosion.”
Many thanks, dear Richard Malcolm, for a very relevant comment.
Massively important evidence of a categorical failure by Dutch Catholic clergy and others charged with Christian education & example. They have been enchanted and entrapped by individualist re-interpretations of the Apostolic Testimony as to who Jesus Christ is, His life story, and His commands to all of us who believe He is God Incarnate, with us.
Am sure you have read & been disgusted by the copious writings of the massively influential Dutch/Belgic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx. His (& that of many other Catholic hubristic theologians) naturalization & subjectification of the reliability of the objective historical records given us in the 27 documents by 9 Apostolic witnesses of The New Testament, has eaten away the solid foundations of faith.
Ironically, in one way, these heretical teachers provide a ‘test of fire’ for ordinary Catholics. Only the faith of those Catholics who are trained & founded on a deep love & obedience to the Risen/Ascended King Jesus Christ survive.
Reading & studying The New Testament, every day, year after year, decade after decade, with joyful worship, provides us with an ‘asbestos suit’, capable of neutralizing every fiery heresy of unfaithful theologians.
Certainly, Christ in Glory warns us that He will vomit out half-hearted Catholics; see: Revelation 3:16. The tragedy is that many of those who fall away would have been whole-hearted & fruitful followers of Christ, if only they had been properly catechized & lovingly incorporated.
Stay firm, knowing Christ above all; love & blessings from marty
Thank you, Rene, for pointing out this “less charitable”but arguably spot on evaluation. It’s not just his sometimes orthodox pronouncements being contradicted by his appointment and empowering of anti-JP II/Benedict progressives. It’s his declaration that abortion is murder while welcoming, praising and empowering horrendous pro abortion politicians.
Brian Young your holding on so tightly to your cracker jack council spirituality in the name of sola scriptura and your affections for Catholics, is not faith.
Your council business means anything, one thing if you are Protestant admiring Catholics, another thing if you are Pope Francis, yet another if you are James Martin or McCarrick. But all will be collecting information and calling it sharing and learning with you hanging around to declare when it’s psychic and when it isn’t or if something else again.
You started begging off above MAY 22, 2023 AT 4:21 PM ducking behind POTUS of all people and that adds another dimension, once more! It’s that strange anguish again, like the time you felt such horror over a sarcasm you said you leveled at me and felt impelled to be so sorry when it meant no more to me than another comment.
Very auto-apologetic (as in auto-euphoric?) but still not faith.
Not quoting Scripture back to a contributor in these comboxes, can never amount to “mariolatry”. There is no Commandment or Mariology that Scripture MUST be quoted.
Many of the comments if not all, dovetail with Chapp’s thesis; see the title or headline and read the article. And in as much as they all connect with one another they are all on point.
Even the comments that try to advance the counter-Catholic ideas, are relevant to Chapp’s thesis, since they offer a practical demonstration of what he discusses.
The BVM is not the Queen of Heaven by virtue of having been described in the Book of Revelation.
Mary’s greatest title is not set at Queen of Heaven.
I already said in another place in CWR, Mary can not be honoured enough. The BVM will magnify God both on our account and on His account and this ever increases with no end.
It is the Catholic position that everything coming to her redounds to God’s glory, in an eminently unique, un-substitutable, irreducible way and this will hold in eternity.
Elias, rereading your comments this sentence, “Now there is Christ in marriage Who brings to fulfillment what He purposed” [Catholic Theology Yesterday and Today] confirms the correctness of your position. I beg your pardon for reading into your comments what wasn’t there.
Fr. I am happy to be corrected where I get it wrong. And to be questioned besides. I believe in my need for moral betterment as well as intellectual. It also sustains prayer life since without the light of the Lord I would be in the dark -and it would be dark. Anyway the questioning is the opener for discussion, which is a good that interests me; however, as you see, even here I can ring out short.