On Tuesday, March 12, 2013, the conclave to elect the successor to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI will have begun.
A few Reformed blogs have treated the Pope’s abdication lightly, when the Catholic Church is in real danger. It is not a stretch of the imagination that, should it find itself in chaos, the rest of Christianity will also be in danger.
With today’s ignorance about the Christian faith — including here in England, even among people over 50 who had to take Religious Education in school — it is quite possible that we will all be tarred with the same atheistic brush of ‘conservative, reactionary perverts and theonomists’.
So, I would suggest that we pray that Benedict XVI can retire in peace and be left alone. We do not know what is really happening inside the Vatican other than that ‘another spirit is moving through’ it — to borrow Martin Luther’s stinging words to Zwingli over the latter’s doubt of the Real Presence in Holy Communion. And that spirit is a form of darkness.
However, there is a cautionary historical story here. Benedict XVI, like the Popes before him going back to John XXIII, advocated teachings which go against Holy Scripture, among them (emphases mine):
Changing with the times: ‘In the era of liberalism that preceded the First World War, the Catholic Church was looked upon as a fossilized organization, stubbornly opposed to all modern achievements‘ … ’Whoever wants to attach himself solely to the literal interpretation of the Scriptures or to the forms of the Church of the Fathers imprisons Christ in “yesterday”.‘
This ties in with the ideas behind la nouvelle théologie: dogma changes over time and old tenets of the faith, even scriptural teachings, can be discarded.
Indeed, Benedict XVI helped to develop the changes which emanated from Vatican II:
Ratzinger became a professor at the University of Bonn in 1959; his inaugural lecture was on “The God of Faith and the God of Philosophy”. In 1963, he moved to the University of Münster.
During this period, Ratzinger participated in the Second Vatican Council (1962–65). Ratzinger served as a peritus (theological consultant) to Cardinal Frings of Cologne. He was viewed during the time of the Council as a reformer, cooperating with theologians like Hans Küng and Edward Schillebeeckx. Ratzinger became an admirer of Karl Rahner, a well-known academic theologian of the Nouvelle Théologie and a proponent of church reform.
My mother, a devout Catholic, read everything going on the Catholic Church, especially when the subject concerned Vatican II. By the 1970s, Ratzinger and Küng were household names in our home. My mother sought out the nuns at my school to voice her opinion that the outcomes of Vatican II would ruin the Church. They attempted to reassure her that these particular changes were necessary and not to worry!
Well, we know what happened. Over the past four decades, the Catholic Church has been hemorrhaging laity and vocations whilst accumulating sacerdotal scandals and internal discord.
There was nothing ‘conservative’ about Benedict XVI, then or now. There are times, as was true with the now-retired Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that, amidst all the Modernist and worldly teaching, a glimmer of faith and brilliance occasionally emerged. The latest case in point was Benedict XVI’s final message on February 28, 2013.
The cautionary point is that Benedict XVI reaped what he sowed. Although none of us has eyes into each other’s souls, I would like to think that since his ascent to the papacy he has at least partially repented of Modernism as he saw the maelstrom of unbelief, corruption and immorality around him. The latest news before he ended his tenure was that a cabal of militant homosexual bishops is lobbying the Church for change. Their ability to do so would have to rely on Vatican insiders — other clergy — allowing that to happen. Of course, the fallout from the sex scandals has not gone away, either.
Vatican II really does have nouvelle théologie written all over it and the relativism it brought to all aspects of Catholic life has caused a number of lay members — including my friends and I — to leave. A few of us became Protestants, however, most left the Christian faith full stop.
A couple of years ago, we got together to talk about the pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II Church. In the pre-Vatican II Church we agreed that we knew where we stood, that the Catholic faith was important to us largely because of the mysterium tremendum in Latin Mass and clear teaching (even if erroneous) which we learned at a young age. Of the post-Vatican II changes, we thought that Mass had lost that mysterium tremendum, the priest wanted to get people in and out as soon as possible and that there was little guidance from the pulpit in matters of faith.
What is truly unfortunate, however, is that those who left Christianity said that they had little reason to believe that Jesus was active in their lives. Christ seems distant to them. Salvation doesn’t worry them; it doesn’t even enter their minds.
That distance and abstraction are part and parcel of nouvelle théologie:
- the Incarnation of the Word (Jesus) was but a mere blip in the evolution of the universe. According to new theology, time moves on and our link to Jesus becomes more abstract. New theology ignores His sacrifice on the Cross, His glorious Resurrection and His promise of salvation.
- God is not personally involved in our lives or our world; rather, God is an abstract ‘universal cosmic Centre’. This notion contradicts Holy Scripture from beginning to end.
- we can be saved only through pantheism — Gaia — and ‘uniting’ ourselves with the universe.
As is often said in marketing, there is a big ‘So what?’ problem with the post-Vatican II Church. There is no compelling reason to align oneself with watery or, just as bad, extra-scriptural theology.
The other factor which I find troubling is the huge emphasis that Pope John Paul II (during whose tenure I left the Catholic Church) placed on Mary, making her co-redemptrix. For more information, see my Christianity / Apologetics page under the heading Mariolatry.
Then there is the difficulty of the Catholic doctrine of Christ’s specific designation of Peter as ‘the rock’ on which He would build His Church (Matthew 16). Yet, when one reads the Bible, Peter has a smaller role to play. This is no doubt one of the reasons why Catholic clergy had, until relatively recently, discouraged lay people from reading Holy Scripture, because if the faithful had begun to read and study it, who knows what contradictions with ‘tradition’ they might find?
… Paul wrote Romans in the year 56, made no reference to Peter … If Peter was the pastor of the church in Rome, why doesn’t he refer to Peter? And he greets a whole bunch of people in chapter 16, he just keeps greeting one after another after another after another, it would be pretty serious to overlook Peter. When Paul was later imprisoned in Rome in the year 60 to 62, he wrote four letters and he included in those letters all who came to him, never mentions Peter. In his last letter, 2 Timothy, written in the year 64 or about that, he gives greeting to ten people in Rome, not Peter..not Peter. By the way, Peter was never called to the Gentiles anyway. Galatians 2:7 and 8, you might want to look at that for just a minute. Galatians 2:7 and 8, he says, “I had been entrusted…Paul says…with the gospel to the uncircumcised, to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.” Peter was never called to pastor a Gentile congregation …
By the way … you might think at least Peter would be the head of the Jerusalem church, but he’s not. According to Galatians chapter 2 and Acts chapter 15, the head of the Jerusalem church was James…not Peter at all. There’s no indication whatsoever that Peter had anything to do with the city of Rome.
In 1 Corinthians chapter 1, the Apostle Paul addresses the factions in the Corinthian church, he says, “Some of you say I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, or Peter, I of Christ.” … He doesn’t make any great thing of him at all. In fact, he makes it very clear that none of these people are particularly significant. They’re not the ones who deserve the credit for the work of God. Go over to chapter 3. “What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed. I planted, Apollos watered, God was causing the growth.” It’s a very low key way to treat yourself. He doesn’t give any elevation to anybody.
Furthermore, Paul went to Rome to preach and in Romans 15:20 he says, “I aspired to preach the gospel not where Christ was already named.” If Peter had been there and planted a church, then that would not be true. He didn’t go where somebody else had been. If Peter was already the Bishop of Rome, why would Paul want to go there and strengthen and establish that church?
In 1 Peter, let’s hear from Peter himself. First Peter chapter 1, [']Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ['], that’s all, an Apostle of Jesus Christ. He introduces himself as nothing more than that, not THE Apostle, not the head of the church. First Peter 5, “I exhort the elders among you as your fellow elder.” As your fellow elder. I’m just one of you. I’m just a partaker of the glory to be revealed. Shepherd the flock of God. “Exercise oversight, not under compulsion but voluntarily, according to the will of God, not for money but with eagerness. Not as…here it comes, verse 3…lording it over those allotted to your charge.” Boy, there’s a direct hit at the papacy. We’re just fellow elders. Don’t ever lord it over. Peter himself actually taught against the priesthood of which, of course, the papacy is the highest place. First Peter 2:5 he says, “You are living stones, you are built up a spiritual house for a holy priesthood.” This is what we know as the priesthood of believers. Down in verse 9, “You are a chosen race. You are a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession.” There’s no priesthood but the priesthood of believers.
And by the way, Peter completely disappears after Acts 15, completely. But in spite of all of this, the Roman Catholic Church affirms that Peter was the first Pope, the head over the whole Church and the author of Papal Succession. Where do they get it? They get it from three passages completely misrepresented. Matthew 16, and this one you know, Jesus said, “I say to you, you’re Peter and on this rock I’ll build My church.” You are Peter and upon this rock I will build My church. It’s a play on words. He’s not saying you are Peter and upon you I’ll build My church. You are Peter, Petros…Petros,small stone, and upon this Petra, rock bed, I will build My church. What rock bed? The rock bed of the reality of Christ. Simon Peter in verse 16, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. And Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood didn’t reveal this to you, My Father who is in heaven. I say you are a small stone, but it’s on the rock bed of who I am that I will build My church.” How could that be perverted, the language is crystal clear?
Then there is the matter of St Malachy’s Prophecy of the Popes. I do not know if it is true, but, if so, and if the translation has been properly interpreted, the next Pope will be the last. His name, according to Malachy, is Petrus Romanus. Then again, the reliability of our interpretation of these predictions could be akin to the way some invoke Nostradamus whenever there is a disaster or mass tragedy.
Does Malachy’s foreseen ‘apocalypse’ during Petrus Romanus’s tenure mean that referred to in Revelation or one of the Catholic Church?
Is it possible that the Catholic Church could move to another leadership model?
Would the papacy transfer from Rome to another city?
No one knows. Personally, I do not think it means the end of the Catholic Church, although its polity could change. Perhaps it will become more biblical in doctrine. Pray that it does.
To that end, thanks to commenters on John MacArthur’s Grace to You blog, I ran across a few useful New Testament verses for Catholic consideration:
- Justification by grace through faith –
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
- Examining teachings against the truth of Scripture –
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. (Acts 17:10-11)
- On venerating Mary –
27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.”
28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” (Luke 11:27-28)
Pray that the Pope Emeritus, the Curia and the next Pope embrace the fullness of Holy Scripture and pass it on to the faithful.
18 comments
March 12, 2013 at 12:21 am
Cyril
Thanks for another very thoughtful post. I’m among those homeless Christians looking on with interest in this great conclave to elect the next Pope. Many among those of us coming out of the Catholic side of things when we were “in” a Church are filled with a mixture of sorrow and a measure of awe for the great musical and liturgical traditions of the Church, but many are also overwhelmed by the size and scope of the corruption and apostasy in the Church today. I remember having an odd feeling when Benedict came to America and, for all of the fanfare and hype, offered so little in the way of concrete correction and instruction to a North American clergy that was frankly, playing for the other side. If Benedict wouldn’t speak great truths to these people who would?
Apparently, almost nobody in power. Sociologist Annie Hendeschott’s article a week or two laid out the almost complete lack of action underneath the report by the Bishop’s Commmittee on Ex Corde Ecclesia. Essentially, little or nothing has been done by North American Catholic colleges and universities to restore basic Catholicism to their campuses, and what is more, the Bishops are happy to issue a one page report completely ignoring the obvious. An article a few weeks ago by the now famous polish priest examined another of the Church’s crises: an enormous gay subculture within the priesthood.
Many more examples abound, and I have spent years wondering what I should or should not do as an individual Catholic in dealing with or adjusting to a Church that has experienced a profound and mostly silent takeover from within. For years I struggled unsuccessfully to find a teaching position somewhere in catholic higher education. In the end, I merely walked out of the institutional Church.
But Christianity must prevail. If this conclave can produce a leader willing and able to speak Christian truth to power, we can all be thankful. As for myself, I try to fall back of good and regular reading of the Holy Scriptures and to look for discerning people where they may be found.
March 12, 2013 at 11:59 am
churchmouse
Thank you, Cyril, for sharing your personal experience. It can be difficult to do, especially when so heartfelt and longstanding.
I found the link to Anne Hendescott’s article and one about it from the Cardinal Newman Society, respectively:
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1991/the_orwellian_world_of_catholic_higher_education.aspx#.UT8SLTfInoZ
http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/1968/Sociology-Professor-Questions-U-S-Bishops-Review-of-Ex-Corde-Ecclesiae.aspx
Re BXVI (please excuse the abbreviation) and the US bishops, the latter have been a force for the Vatican to reckon with for most of my life. My mother used to call them ‘renegades’. She would have been horrified to find out the extent of Alinsky’s influence on them. (She didn’t know who Alinsky was, by the way.)
I do not think BXVI could have said much and — this is just my opinion but — I think his statements were to the faithful. Perhaps he said something stronger to the bishops in private?
It’s interesting that the media gave JPII a pass on the paedophile scandals. JPII, it has been said, never paid much attention because paedophilia was a means by which Communists smeared Catholic priests behind the Iron Curtain. Therefore, JPII thought these were largely false accusations.
Once BXVI became Pope, the media were all over him. They liked JPII because he was media-friendly. BXVI, being more introspective and reserved, attracted their wrath. Personally, I preferred Benedict to John Paul largely for that reason. However, I realise I’m in the minority. With the faithful — especially the young — I didn’t notice any difference in their reaction to him. When BXVI came to England, the younger Catholics (as well as the older ones) were thrilled to meet him and receive his blessing. And BXVI was genuinely open to meeting and talking with them.
It’s good to read that you are reading the Bible, Cyril. May it continue to enrich your faith by the day.
I agree with what you say about Catholic education but it was encouraging to read in the articles linked to above that Sister John Mary Fleming, O.P. is from a traditional Dominican order, the one from Nashville. I have read elsewhere that the numbers of young women applying to them for the novitiate is growing steadily. I have also read that the younger priests are much more conservative than their middle aged and elderly counterparts. So, there is hope. Whether you will see any change within the next decade is unclear; however, with more conservative cardinals appointed by JPII and BXVI, this will certainly have a knock-on effect in that direction.
Speaking generally, I find it somewhat puzzling that disgruntled Catholics do not at least attend a Protestant church. Perhaps the saying ‘You’ll go to Hell if you leave Holy Mother Church’ still looms over many lapsed Catholics. Ironically, leaving Christianity full stop is worse than joining a Protestant denomination. That, by the way, was not intended personally, Cyril, but rather for people who think like some of the lapsed — fallen? — Catholics I know. There might also be a scintilla of ‘Catholicism is Christianity — everything else is fake’. Hmm.
March 12, 2013 at 4:03 pm
Dave E
With regards to the validity of Roman Catholicism, I can recommend Dave Hunt’s book “A Woman Rides the Beast”. It is not light-weight reading, but well worth-while, but be prepared to be challenged.
March 12, 2013 at 4:15 pm
churchmouse
Thanks, Dave. For those interested, here is a link to Amazon reader reviews:
A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days
I should say that my blog takes an amillenial outlook on Revelation and the end of the world. Revelation is of the Messianic genre, which Jews of the day would have understood somewhat differently to our era.
This is from my post on Revelation 17:
‘One of the seven angels who poured out his vial explains to St John what will happen to the ‘great whore’ (verse 1). She symbolises churches, kingdoms and civil governments that turn from God. Her ways are seductive, for they appeal to pleasure and power (verse 2). In St John’s time, she would have been linked with the Roman Empire. By Matthew Henry’s day (1662-1714), she would have symbolised a corrupt Roman Catholic Church. Today, we might find her anywhere in the world.’
My posts on Revelation are based on an amillenial study by a Lutheran pastor, the Revd Thomas C Messer, of Peace Lutheran Church in Alma, Michigan. This is what Pastor Messer had to say:
‘The best way to understand the Prostitute of Babylon is to contrast her with the Bride of Christ (the church). She represents all unbelief, just as the church represents all belief. All unbelievers are wed to the Prostitute, while all believers are wed to Christ. Her name, “Babylon the Great,” is contrasted with the New Jerusalem (Satan’s followers vs. the Church, made up of Christ’s followers).’
March 12, 2013 at 8:57 pm
churchmouse
Have just seen that Dave Hunt is Plymouth Brethren and evangelical dispensational (rapture believer):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Hunt_%28Christian_apologist%29
March 12, 2013 at 4:43 pm
Cyril
You are right, Churchmouse, For many disgruntled Catholics, the thought never really occurs to try these other churches. Many wear their catholicism a little bit the way lapsed Jews tend to carry their Judaism; sort of an ethnic background thing that lingers long after the spirit has flown.
I’ve variously sat in on anumber of different Protestant Churches. When I was living in the southside area of Virginia a number of years ago, I would go sit in on the United Methodist Church down the street. Not a bad service in that particular church. Some nice old hymns and a sincere minister. A little later, I attended a few Pentecostal services with my then fiance; found the speaking in tongues intriguing and many church members friendly and sincere, and even a few good sermons; but major parts of the service were jarring and banal at the same time; almost like attending a lower-middle class social gathering. Film projection even used here.
More recently, I attended a good number of services “meetings” with the Jehovah’s Witnesses; a few times in Canada, and here in the States where we live. My wife is a Jehovah’s Witness, and a good and devoted spirit, and so I was happy to accompany her to these meetings when she was first breaking into a new congregation and didn’t want to go alone the first time. As for myself, I couldn’t be farther away from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Other than sharing a strong belief in the authority of scriptures – I find their theology largely a reinvention of older hereseys coupled with just plain odd distortions of classical Christian doctrine. And there are the content problems with their “New World Translation” of the Bible. Attending their services invokes feelings of being at a sales convention; taxonomic; unspiritual; and no viable musical liturgy.
I would like to check out the more orthodox Lutherans, or similar; I generally find their liturgical style much more compelling and foundational to the faith than so many of the churches out there.
March 12, 2013 at 4:47 pm
churchmouse
I’ll avoid commenting on the JWs as you are married to one, although I have written about them (see my Christianity / Apologetics page).
Is there an obstacle to finding a Lutheran church in your area? Surely, there must be some?
March 12, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Cyril
We are in South Carolina, which traditionally has been about as Lutheran as Idaho is Jewish. I located a fine prospect in the area, but we waiting the finalization of a home purchase within the local area that would take us farther from that church, so I’m weighing this against other churches scattered across this area.
March 12, 2013 at 5:02 pm
churchmouse
Oh, okay — thanks for explaining. I’d been wondering for months, ever since you commented on your results from the denominational quiz.
There are some decent Episcopal churches in your state. They might present a reasonable alternative for a visit.
March 13, 2013 at 2:46 am
Cyril
The Catholic Church is facing internal corruption of historic proportions as it conducts this conclave, and as has been the case for those many generations since the division between Eastern and Western Christianity, and then the division within Western Christianity that came with Reformation – divisions persist within Christiandom, and many of us wish it weren’t so.
I have many friends and sympathies with sincere people and wise practices on all sides of these 3 breaks. But I find myself looking more dimly on some of the other movements that have gained force within the struggles and divisions today. Doctrines preaching the rapture and other “unique” understandings of the Scriptures in addition to the strange aspects of the JW doctrines point to the great potential for error and confusion that Catholicism and Luther’s Protestantism warned about, and tried to guard against. Although I must say, I do admire the conviction and sincererity among many of these emergent groups – many do take the central tenets of the Christian faith seriously – unlike many elites and rank-and-file Mainline Protestant and Catholics. But I have no plans to ever join their ranks.
March 13, 2013 at 8:40 am
churchmouse
I agree.
The only Protestant denominations I give any credence to are Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Calvinism — unless there’s a pastor out there (John MacArthur) who is exceptionally scholarly on the Bible.
Hence my note above on Dave Hunt and his beliefs. I also pray MacArthur gives up on his belief in the Rapture. Unfortunately, if you’ve been brought up that way, it’s hard to let go.
I appreciate knowing the affiliation of Christians commenting here frequently. That way, I know where they are coming from and I can put their beliefs in context.
The others I’m concerned about are the theonomists, whose views I do not advocate. They are very crafty at making an intellectual argument for anti-intellectualism and a one kingdom society (as opposed to a 2K of civil and religious spheres, which occasionally intersect but offer freedom of belief, as per the US Constitution).
March 13, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Linda Kimball
“That distance and abstraction are part and parcel of nouvelle théologie….”
New Theology is distinctively gnostic. It is gnostic mystical pantheism that has absorbed, radically re-made and inverted Scripture.
C.S. Lewis was among the first to see that scientific materialism (secular humanism and its’ primary doctrine, biological evolution) and cosmic and/or spiritual New Age humanism (mystical pantheism and spiritual evolution) were the two sides of the same revival of pagan monism.
During Lewis’s lifetime, cosmic and secular humanist ideas together with gnostic philosophical and utopian systems were growing in acceptance and popularity throughout academia, within seminaries, universities and among the masses.
In his book, “The Great Divorce,” Lewis presents us with a masterful study of the psychology of the hell-bound apostate pagan monists versus the psychology of the faithful Paradise-bound.
The essay, “Bus Ride from Hell,” connects dots between the ‘isms’ so currently active, showing that they actually go back many millennia, explains the significance of some of the ancient Gnostic roots of New Theology and other modernist dogmas as well as drawing on Lewis’ masterful psychology:
Transhumanism is a powerfully influential planetary ‘elite’ movement that believes man can begin a radical transfiguration of himself by merging his brain with technology with the long term goal of eventually transferring his ‘essence’ out of his decaying body and into a highly advanced robo-machine. A Daily Mail article reported that,
‘…inserting technology into human brains is not the only thing going on. Some scientists also want to insert human brains into technology” (“Hitler would have loved The Singularity: Mind-blowing benefits of merging human brains and computers,” Ian Morris, 6 February 2012, dailymail.co.uk)
In July 2012, transhumanism officially came out of the closet and into the arena of politics when Italy, a longtime stronghold of the Catholic Church, became the first major Western nation to elect an active transhumanist to congress. (Italy elects first transhumanist MP, Giulio Prisco, Aug. 26, 2012, kurzweilai.net)
Though it lauds itself as thoroughly scientific, enlightened and forward looking, transhumanism is merely the pantheist counterpart of scientific materialism’s secular humanism. In his book, The Abolition of Man (1947), C.S. Lewis observed that mystical pantheist or cosmic humanism and materialist secular humanism and similar variants appeared in Western history in the heart of Christendom during the Renaissance.
The Renaissance reawakened a magic view of the world closely connected with Gnostic mystical pantheism, Eastern pantheism as well as Hermetic and alchemical-scientism. Along with Eastern pantheism came spiritual evolution, reincarnation, karma, occultism and New Theology (modernism) while for its’ materialist counterpart there eventually came Darwinism and determinism rather than karma.
Early on Lewis understood that Cosmic and Secular Humanism were merely two sides of the same revival of pagan monism. Thus he argued, Cosmic and Secular Humanism are not enemies in principle but rather cooperating philosophies of naturalism united against the Creator Who exists outside of the time-space universe, His Revelation to mankind, the two created sexes, Original Sin, His moral law, Christian theism, and Christian-based civilization.
During Lewis’s lifetime, cosmic and secular humanist ideas together with gnostic philosophical and utopian systems were growing in acceptance and popularity throughout academia, within seminaries, universities and among the masses.
Among common points of departure for both types of humanism are the following ideas:
1. Rejection of the living God Who dwells outside the time-space universe with special antipathy directed against Jesus Christ God incarnate in favor of “only this world” naturalism; no God, a distant God or pantheist conceptions of God, and Jesus Christ as a mortal teacher such as Buddha, the angelic brother of Lucifer, the gnostic alchemist’s Lapis Philosophorum ,or perhaps a highly evolved Transcended Master or spirit guide.
2. Rejection of the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo in favor of either pre-existing or spontaneously generated matter and mechanical evolutionary processes
3. Rejection of physical eternal life in either Paradise (renewed earth) or hell in favor of no afterlife whatsoever, Cosmic Salvation (the ultimate goal of gnostic alchemys Great Work) or wholly spiritual conceptions such as man’s ghost forever wandering about in the aerial realm of spirits or perhaps living a phantom existence on a planet.
4. Humanity as deity
5. Subjectivism: No right way, no wrong way, all directions lead to the same place.
Read more: http://patriotsandliberty.com
March 13, 2013 at 1:48 pm
churchmouse
Thank you, Linda.
It’s a pity that Sunday School or school religious education curricula no longer cover heresies, particularly Gnosticism. It’s been present since forever and morphs into ever-intriguing (to some) ways. It’s one for all of us to be on guard against, as it can be seductive, promising ‘extra’, ‘secret’ or ‘insider’ knowledge.
My advice to other readers — from my own experience — is that if a Christian concept seems too ‘complex’ or ‘out there’ to understand, it’s probably an example of Gnosticism.
Gnostic ‘knowledge’ is not to be confused with certain divine mysteries — e.g. the Holy Trinity — that are God’s. Our catechisms and confessions of faith explain these for our understanding. If we find something outside of the creeds and our denomination’s beliefs, we would do well to ignore it.
I am not well acquainted with CS Lewis outside of Screwtape Letters, so shall open the floor to my readers who are.
March 13, 2013 at 2:21 pm
Cyril
Great commentary from Linda. Extremely insightful! I know I’m not alone in saying I owe a great deal of my own development in understanding Christianity (trying to, at any rate!) to C. S. Lewis. I have not read “The Great Divorce” however. Lewis had that remarkable ability to see through things, and to lay out so effectively that classic/orthodox Christian belief, and to discern how and why particular beliefs and practices conform or deviate from this.
March 15, 2013 at 12:14 am
Cyril
There may have been a time when Ratzinger and Kuhn had at least partially overlapping ideas, but they were headed in very different directions. With all the institutional corruption in the Church going on, Ratzinger himself, along with John Paul 11 was a stabilizing force of clarity and reason, strongly rooted in Church teachings and what most Christians would easily recognize as classical, orthodox Christian doctrine; the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism not withstanding. Like Pope John Paul 11, he is among the greatest Christian writers of the 20th Century. Kuhn and ratzinger are on almost completely different ends of Christiandom today.
My own troubled experience with the Church was not a rejection of either Benedict or John Paul 11, but rather a frustration and sadness that the counterchurch, still dominant in North America, Europe, and even having a presence in the College of Cardinals and Vatican, had successfully sacked the Church. Now they haven’t really, but have made tremendous inroads up to the point where you speculate over who you are referring to when you say “The Church”. Yes, everyone knows and recognizes the Pope, but 1) how much influence does he have on what many/most clergy are doing in your diocese, and 2) how much influence does he have on what is going on at your local “Catholic” college. The respectively answers are “not too much”, and “very little”.
One of the interesting things I have seen in America is how much certain Protestants – orthodox ones, be they Baptist or other, actually came to admire John Paul 11 and Benedict. And it wasn’t that most of these people planned to become Catholic. No; it was rather that they welcomed a strong, intelligent, well reasoned public voice for the Christian principles they believe in. And many wished their pastor would say the same things.
How an individual should respond to the various crises within Christianity today is an enormously challenging issue, and I certainly don’t have all the answers. Even where I recognize so many commonalities with many Protestants in basic creed and so forth, I recognize their own churches to have the great divisions as well. And I stop short at moving to a church that doesn’t have the great liturgical tradition of the Catholic mass, and the incomparable richness of Gregorian chant and so forth. It’s odd, but for all the talk of Catholics not staying close enough to the Bible, I have found the basic Catholic mass (particularly when done by a real priest, and not one of the drones!) is far more Biblical than any Protestant service I have attended. While I respect the Methodists who I occasionally joined for sunday services a while back, and have sat in on a variety of different churches and observed many sincere people and some nice prayers along the way, there is always this sense that these services, this style of liturgy, is missing some really big and basic things.
It remains to be seen wether, and to what extent the new pope will have more success in turning the tide than Benedict. The counterchurch is aging, and aging fast, and new priests today are much more orthodox. The same questions remain for the Lutherans and other groups. Difficult times!
March 15, 2013 at 12:47 am
churchmouse
Thanks, Cyril.
It’s getting late for me, so I probably won’t be able to respond as fully as I would like. Also, please pardon any repetitions or awkward wording.
I’ll start from the end of your post working back towards the top.
1/ Liturgically, I think you will find the Episcopal and ACNA (Anglicans of North America — high church) VERY close to Catholic Mass. Perhaps you’ve never attended an Episcopal / Anglican Communion service?
2/ It seems you might need to visit more denominations before being too sure of what they offer with regard to Communion services. Therefore, I disagree with your ‘biblical’ take on Catholic Mass. Episcopalians/Anglicans and Lutherans have much the same service, liturgy and wording in their Communion services. Methodists are quite similar, although the way they distribute Communion is different. Reformed (including Presbyterian) churches are also somewhat removed from the Catholic – Anglican – Lutheran way of the Supper. Still, I would challenge anyone to say that a Reformed service is less ‘biblical’ than a Catholic/Anglican/Lutheran service. Perhaps it is worth trying more services, particularly those which feature the Lord’s Supper, rather than Morning Prayer or similar? I cannot speak for the Holiness tradition — Charismatics — and the Pentecostalists. Nor can I speak for Evangelicals in general. Some of those have more recent 19th century ‘traditions’ and errors, for lack of a better word, resembling those of the Anabaptists.
3/ If you read some of the orthodox Reformed and Lutheran blogs in my blogroll, I do not think you will find much high regard for the papacy at all. If I’m not mistaken, the Lutheran and Reformed confessions of faith still teach that the Pope is the Antichrist. Perhaps you are thinking of some Arminian (free will) Baptists — e.g. some of the Southern Baptist Convention — and Evangelicals (e.g. the late Chuck Colson’s group). Should you respond with specific sites, I can give a firmer opinion.
4/ As to Catholics eating up their Church, well, you were right in saying they have ‘successfully sacked’ it. I do not think that Pope Francis will be able to do much to stem the tide. Sure, there will always be Protestant converts to the Catholic faith. What Protestant converts often do not realise is that Holy Mother Church must be obeyed in everything. That includes Mary as co-Redemptrix, a JPII confection dating back to a volume published a few centuries ago (see my Christianity / Apologetics page under ‘Mariolatry’ for a history of how this came about). When we were growing up, Mary was important, certainly, but no one posited then that she was co-Saviour.
5/ I have found a lot of similarity among Kung, Ratzinger and the ‘sainted’ (for many) John Paul II. Kung was the most straightforward in his embrace of la nouvelle theologie but John Paul II kissed the Koran and made some strange ecumenical statements during his media-friendly papacy. (Never trust a media-friendly clergyman.) Ratzinger wholly supported Vatican II until he saw the monster it became. I would posit that the paedophilia scandals emanated from Vatican II; not that they didn’t exist before, but scum floats to the top with bad doctrine. There is no doubt that all three whom you mention spoke with a ‘wooden tongue’, as the French would say, in highly intellectual language, almost impossible to understand. That’s a gnostic warning, too.
I apologise if I seem harsh, but the Curia, the Vatican intellectuals and the past few Popes have not helped the Catholic Church at all.
March 20, 2013 at 2:51 pm
Cyril Ignatius
Thanks for your thoughts on this issue, Churchmouse, and as usual these issues are interrelated so much of the time. And your insight is always very illuminating and well grounded. I apologize in not getting back to you quicker; In addition to my normal teaching duties, I spend a great deal of time in culinary projects at home and some musical projects as well; and to fill the schedule even more, we are packing boxes for a move to a new house.
The Marian theology question is a big one, and one I’ve been circling around for a long while. The Virgin Mary is obviously an extremely important figure in Christianity; But is the Catholic Church’s seeming elevation of her status an advancement of the Faith or a departure? I don’t know the answer. I get very uncomfortable with anything that doesn’t have a clear scriptural basis, and yet I understand how many Catholics emaphasize that the Church in essence wrote the New Testament scriptures, and that the scriptures give to the Church the authority to discern the boundaries of the Faith – they presume within the bounds of scripture. Some Catholics seemed to have move towards treating Mary as co-redeemer alongside Jesus. I am not aware of this being official Church doctrine, and yet clearly many Catholics have approached their Faith in a way that seems to do just that. My understanding was that Christians revere Mary, but we are actually approaching Jesus through Mary in those cases. And yet, I’m very sympathetic to the Protestant scriptural objections to this.
Historically, I am aware that there have been a sizeable number of fully authenticated appearances by the Virgin Mary, and yet I am not aware that her message in these appearances was to place herself alongside Jesus as co-redeemer. So where is this Catholic co-redeemer thing coming from? That’s a difficult one. I remember a Marianist priest telling me what he says to most people: we know and follow Jesus; with someone this overwhelmingly important – the Messiah – wouldn’t you want to know his mother?? And of course, I and others might respond and say, we sure do; and we revere her; but she is not the Messiah. To make her co-redeemer is obviously taking great liberties liberties with the Bible.
March 20, 2013 at 3:26 pm
churchmouse
Thanks, Cyril — I realise you have a busy schedule, so wasn’t expecting a quick reply.
I’ve now got my comments section to expire after a fortnight, so if you want to get back and this one is closed, you can always start again on another thread. I have one on the Pope’s inaugural Mass coming up on Friday evening for Saturday.
I agree with your perspective completely and that’s how I was brought up, although, in reality, we have to admit (at least I do) that there was the occasional slip into ‘Ask the Blessed Mother’ in terms of prayer. So, in that respect, there was a very thin line between asking for her intercession and praying directly and exclusively to her for something.
What follows are some shocking links re the co-Redemptrix theology, started by — John Paul II. I’ve got the source information included, so you can read it in full when you have time. (When I first read the source material, my jaw dropped.) All these are listed on my Christianity / Apologetics page under ‘Mariolatry’, by the way:
1/ Summary — gives timeline, including JPII’s pronouncements in 1987, 1997 and 2002:
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/a-summary-of-mariology-and-the-church/
2/ John MacArthur on Mariolatry — Part I (includes what Luther and Calvin thought — respect but no reverence):
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/john-macarthur-on-mariolatry-part-1/
3/ John MacArthur on Mariolatry — Part II:
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/john-macarthur-on-mariolatry-part-2/
4/ Emotion, sensationalism, Mary and ecumenism = One World Religion (watch Pope Francis play on this):
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/emotion-sensation-mary-and-ecumenism-one-world-religion/
Here is a taster from MacArthur:
‘In some strange way they have Mary somehow suffering in an efficacious manner for the very sins which had placed her Son there. According to the Church, “Mary’s sufferings were so intense that they brought her to the very threshold of death herself” She – says the Church – “Participated with Jesus Christ in the very painful act of redemption.” So the suffering of Mary at the cross was redeeming sinners – It is said at the cross that Mary triumphed over the ancient serpent. Another document says, “It is due chiefly to her leadership and help that the wisdom and teachings of the gospel spread so rapidly to all the nations of the world …” And now Mary is the Holy Spirit. She’s the one spreading the gospel. She’s the one converting sinners. [De Liguori] said, “She cooperated in our redemption and became the mother of our souls”.
‘Finally, just one last comment from [De Liguori], equally bizarre and blasphemous, page 26, “Mary merited to conceive the Son of God in her virginal womb”. At the same time, she not only agreed and gave consent, but she asked with all her heart and obtained the salvation of all the elect.” Mary is the savior.’
If and when you get around to reading these, please get back to me — any thread will do. I would very much like to find out your reaction.
In closing, I’ll say prayers for you and send you best wishes as you cope with a demanding schedule as well as a house move! Oh, my.