From the National Catholic Register:
Pope Benedict XVI has relaxed the rules on the use of the Mass celebrated before the Second Vatican Council.
In a document titled Summorum Pontificum, issued July 7, the Pope has instructed bishops to make the Tridentine Mass freely available in any parish that desires to have it.
The Holy Father called the instruction the “fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.” It comes into effect Sept. 14, the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.
At present, any priest or group of faithful wishing to celebrate the old Latin rite requires the permission of their bishop who can arbitrarily refuse the request.
But from September, all the faithful will now have the right to use without further permission what Pope Benedict describes as this “extraordinary form” ”” the Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Missal of Blessed Pope John XXIII.
The “ordinary form” of the Mass will continue to be the 1970 Novus Ordo Mass of Pope Paul VI.
This is similar to IF KJS announced that Episcopal parishes could use the 1928 Prayer Book.
A number of Jewish leaders have expressed concern that a return to the pre-Vatican II missal will mean a return to anti-Jewish language. The specter of adversus judaeos is legitimate to raise given the horrific history of anti-semitism in the Catholic church. While most of the “hate speech” was removed before Vatican II, all of the theology and intellectual framework remains. Says Mark Francis in his article, “Beyond Language” (The Tablet, 14 July 2007):
Perhaps the most problematic aspect of the “Tridentine Rite” is its treatment of Judaism. While the adjective “perfidious” describing the Jews was removed from the 1962 edition of the Missal there are still prayers that call for their conversion in direct contradiction to Vatican II’s “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions” …
In much the same vein, the Missal refers to Christians of other Churches as heretics and schismatics—descriptions of fellow Christians that are unlikely to promote much ecumenical dialogue.
And since the lectionary attached to this Missal proposes practically no readings from the Old Testament it represents a deficient liturgical presentation of God’s Word—a problem that the Council fathers sought to remedy.
Judaism is a dead religion. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with praying for its adherents any more than there is anything wrong with praying for the Muslims or the atheists to convert. In fact, it is a Christian duty.
The alleged “horrific history of anti-Semitism” is ridiculous slander.
Reactionary, Judaism is not a dead religion. And where is your evidence, please, that the “horrific history of anti-Semitism” is “ridiculous slander”?
comment #3 is among the most sick I have seen on T1:9. It is this type of vile words that convince others of the yopic view of thos of us who follow God ina Jesus way, but struggle with being identified as part of the church.
This has been discussed before. The specific language to which Jewish leaders have objected is found primarily in the Good Friday service. The new rules specificy that the Tridentine Mass is not to be used during Holy Week, so the objection is moot, as I understand it.
If Judaism is a “live” religion, why are large blocks of it as set forth in Leviticus no longer practiced by people who identify themselves as Jews? Where is the Jewish Messiah, if he is not Christ?
Also, just FYI, we Catholics still pray for the conversion of the Jews (which is not contrary to Vatican II, no matter how much wishful thinking occurs with certain “Spirit of Vatican II” types).
http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2007/07/pssst-we-still-pray-for-conversion-of.html
Reactionary – You obviously don’t know any or many observant religious Jews. It is not a dead religion, it is very much alive and well and observance is growing in many places in the US.
As for the Roman Catholic Church praying for the conversion of Jews and Protestants and Muslims, I have no problem with that. I pray that that the Roman Catholic Church will repent of its errors and return to the Apostolic faith.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Philip,
The same can be said for a number of religious faiths. Also, please answer these questions: if Judaism is a living faith, (1) where is the Messiah foretold by its Prophets and (2) why do its adherents not practice the animal sacrifices that are integral to it?
“why do its adherents not practice the animal sacrifices that are integral to it?”
Probably has something to do with the mosque and shrine complex sitting on the Temple Mount, for starters. And whether or not animal sacrifices are integral to modern Judaism would seem to be a question best asked of the Jews.
1. Judaism believes that their Messiah is yet to come.
2. Animal sacrifices ended with the destruction of the temple – the only place that animal sacrifice was offered within a short time after it was built.
Tell me, why do you not continue to practices of church as defined in the New Testament? Are husbands and wives seated together in the congregation? Is intrumental music used (we have no record of instrumental music being used in worship in the NT)? Is your congregation subject to the authority of an apostolic council in Jerusalem? If your answer to any of these questions is “no,” then you, too, must be a member of a “dead” religion.
Just because another faith does not practice their faith as [b]you[/b] think that they should is not proof or even evidence of that it is a “dead” faith.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Things I have learned since the moto proprio came out:
1.) “Perfidious” is a bad translation of a Latin word that means “unbelieving”. Jews, and others, who don’t believe in Christ are unbelievers… perfidious.
2.) The prayers for the conversion of Jews – and others – are present in the current Mass, though stated less directly.
3.) Some folks will say just about any slanderous (and ignorant) thing against Catholics on any occasion, apparently expecting people to believe what they say. The spirits of Jack Chick and Bob Jones are alive and well, as amply illustrated in comment #3 above.
Ok, I actually knew some of this before the moto proprio, but it’s been awhile since it was so harshly flung in my face.
Judaism was forced to adapt to the changing environment after the Romans destroyed the temple in 70CE. That’s when the synagogue movement kicked in full swing (there were synagogues for worship before that, but sacrifices could ONLY be offered in the temple at Jerusalem).
The fact that Judaism is still around proves that it is not a dead religion. We can argue if it is as spiritually alive as it once was (and it was in need of the Messiah when Jesus came, with the ‘leaven’ of the pharasees corrupting it), but it is still alive.
The end times prophecies all center around Jerusalem and the conversion of the Jewish peoples to belief in Y’su as the Messiah. It will happen.
As to the Levitical code (or the 613 laws), they are still practiced. Ever watch “Fiddler on the Roof”? Many Jewish households still practice the strict kashrut laws, even to the point of having separate dishes and storage for meat and dairy.
I would highly recommend the book [u]This is my God[/u] by Herman Wouk for further reading. Fantastic treatise on modern Judaism. other books would include [u]Conversations with Rabbi Small[/u] by Harry Kemmelman (if it’s still in print) and [u]Wanderings: a history of the Jews[/u] by Chaim Potok.
I would also point you to the website of [url=jewsforjesus.org]Jews for Jesus[/url] for more information on Jews who have discovered that Y’shua is the promised Messiah.
Islam and Hindu are still practiced. Both religions are dead because they pray to false gods. I will grant you that Jews worship the same ontological God the Father as Christians, but they deny the Trinity and deny Jesus as God and the Messiah. Judaism is therefore erroneous doctrine, or the author of Hebrews was gravely mistaken in advising Jewish converts to continue in the Christian as opposed to the Jewish faith. So, with no more animal sacrifices, no Messiah, no Temple, and the Old Testament nation-state of Israel destroyed by the Romans, Judaism is simply a collection of religious practices maintained by Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.
‘I pray that that the Roman Catholic Church will repent of its errors and return to the Apostolic faith.’
Wel, what do you know, Phil: here I am actually agreeing with you!!!! But glad also that you can stand up for Judaism.
The Catholic Church has nothing to repent of. Would that the Episcopal Church in its day of change had allowed the 1928 Book of Common Prayer to be used where it was desired by Priest and faithful. This is a good decision by Benedict XVI.
Reactionary – Are you saying that the “eternal” covenant between God and Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, and David has been abandoned by God? I sure hope your biblical exegesis is better than that!
If you wish to say that Christainity is closer to the truth of God than Judaism or Islam or Hinduism or any other religion, then I will have to agree with you. If you are saying that God cannot be known in those other faiths, then I will have to disagree with you. I submit that God is knowable to all you seek Him or a closer relationship with Him. The medium of knowing God (e.g. the religion) will distort our knowledge of God. Even Christianity (or rather our practice of Christianity) distorts our knowledge of God. Different faiths will distort more or less. The least “distortion” is offered in Jesus Christ and through his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension. The self-revelation of God is recorded in the natural world and supremely in Holy Scripture and interpreted by the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (of which Rome is a member as is Canterbury).
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[i]’I pray that that the Roman Catholic Church will repent of its errors and return to the Apostolic faith.’ [/i]
I pray that [b]ALL[/b] people will repent of their errors and sin and return (or turn) to the Apostolic Faith.
Philip,
God delivered the Jews their promised Messiah. He has not broken any covenants with them. If a Jew rejects the Messiah, then they are the ones in breach of covenant.
Are you now subscribing to unitarian universalism?
God’s covenant with Israel was not that He would deliver them their Messiah. God’s covenant is that he would be their God and they would be His people. That has not changed. We, as Christians, are grafted into the vine of Israel. Israel was not dug out and replaced by us, but we were grafted into the vine.
I am not a universalist in the sense you mean it. I believe that Jesus Christ is [b]the[/b] way, truth, and life, not [b]a[/b] way. The only means to salvation that I know “works” is the incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. I think of other faiths similar to how C. S. Lewis portrayed them in [u]The Last Battle[/u] where the soldier who worshipped Tash was taken with Aslan at the end. All truth finds itself rooted in God. You cannot have truth without God and all who seek for the truth will find Jesus looking back at them. The problem is that their vision is distorted by other things around them, so they don’t recognize Jesus until their vision is cleared by death. So, you can imagine a person facing Judgement. They see Jesus and, instead of saying: “who are you?” they say: “I know you! I’ve been searching for you all my life!”
Or, as Paul said in Athens – What you worship as unknown, I know make known to you.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I don’t have the time to do it right now, but it would be helpful to examine what the New Testament epistles say about the Jewish people and our reaction to them. What do Sts Peter, Paul, James, John, etc. say?
Pope Sparks Mass Revival
I meant to say this is the best Catholic headline I’ve seen since –
Sunday Masses to honor Church’s Founder.
And forgive the long quote, but I ran across this editorial in the NCReg. It explains, perhaps, some of the depth behind this pope:
The Pope’s outreach to Chinese Catholics, abrograting previous Vatican directives in China, may have seemed a progressive action. His outreach to “Tridentine†Mass Catholics reached back into the Church’s past and may have seemed a traditionalist move. But the Pope’s book Jesus of Nazareth reveals that Pope Benedict is no progressivist, and no traditionalist, either.
The book was unprecedented. The Pope published it in April under his pre-papal name, insisting that it was not a magisterial work. No other pope in the Church’s long memory has done that.
In it, he speaks frankly about different camps of Scriptural interpretation that led the Church astray. But the scholars he embraces aren’t necessarily the favorites of old-school Catholic thinkers, either.
The book is capable of surprising statements, when you consider they are coming from a pope, like when he talks of the disappointment some might feel that Christ offered the Kingdom but delivered the Church.
If the Pope’s position seems like an enigma, it needn’t.
Pope Benedict’s vision isn’t one that longs to restore the glories of the Church’s past or one that is easily identifiable with one “camp†or another in the Church’s present. He knows that the past wasn’t as glorious as we sometimes would like to remember, and that the Church is greater than what any one camp might think.
Rather, these major actions of the Holy Father are all of a kind: They are all attempts to forge unity through love.
We often hear lip service given to unity. But usually, when we promote “unity†what we really want is for everyone to do things more or less the way we like them done. When unity requires us to overlook unfounded misgivings we might have, and when it requires us to give freer rein to those we might naturally oppose, we lose our enthusiasm for unity.
Pope Benedict has a richer, deeper commitment to unity.
He has taken bold, decisive action to welcome Chinese Catholics and Latin Mass Catholics back into the fold. His decision will entail some liturgical and bureaucratic difficulty in the short term, but will prepare the Church in the best way for its future by maximizing the channels through which it can deliver the sacraments to souls.
And the key to the drive for unity behind the Pope is in his book Jesus of Nazareth. We can fall into the trap of thinking that the Church is a giant institution that regulates religious devotion. If we think of the Church that way, then the Holy Father’s efforts at unity can seem like more trouble than they are worth.
But Pope Benedict thinks of the Church as the body of Christ. His efforts at unity are efforts to preserve the integrity of that body — and to ensure that the Church acts as the instrument of Christ’s love in the world.
# 16 : care magister – nonne gavisus es propter consilium Papae de missa Latina? discipuli tui nunc linguam nobilissimam extra scholam audire poterunt, etiamsi cum erroribus Romae maximis!
As to what portions of Jewish law Jews should observe, given the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE: This is a matter for Jews to determine.
The following statement is really incorrect: “The alleged “horrific history of anti-Semitism†is ridiculous slander.” The history of European Christian nations’ treatment of Jews for about 800 years is a disgrace to our religion, and we should be straighforward in admitting this. Jews were discriminated against, subject to pogroms, forcibly converted, and forced to leave some areas en masse. This was, of course, in the same eras when pressure from Islamic military efforts and internal arguments about religion convulsed Europe in external and internal religious crusades and atrocities. Understanding the context of the oppression of the Jews doesn’t excuse it, however.
It is also true that the genocide of about 6 million Jews in the 1940s was perpetrated by anti-religious Nazis, not by the Church. The fact that religious Christians were not involved in this “final solution” does not absolve the Church and its members from responsibility for prior outrages. We do not learn from past sins if we refuse to acknowledge that they occurred.
#24
Nempe missam Latinam maxime diligo. Et benevolentia tua valde gaudeo.
Vale, mi amice.
I understand from what I’ve gleaned on the internet that the Pope believes all Christian communions other than the Roman Catholic are defective. How does that square with unity? I feel bad that I’m considered defective.
Re: 12
Phil,
You wrote…
[blockquote]Tell me, why do you not continue to practices of church as defined in the New Testament? Are husbands and wives seated together in the congregation? Is intrumental music used (we have no record of instrumental music being used in worship in the NT)? Is your congregation subject to the authority of an apostolic council in Jerusalem? If your answer to any of these questions is “no,†then you, too, must be a member of a “dead†religion.[/blockquote]
I can’t speak for anyone else but my answers to the above questions are…
[i]Are husbands and wives seated together in the congregation?[/i]
In some more liberal parishes tolerance for this has crept in. But the custom of the Church remains for men to stand on one side (usually the right) and women to stand on the other
[i]Is intrumental music used (we have no record of instrumental music being used in worship in the NT)?[/i]
No. The use of instrumental music is prohibited during services.
[i]Is your congregation subject to the authority of an apostolic council in Jerusalem?[/i]
My Church is synodal and concilliar. There is a Church Synod that sits in Jerusalem under the Patriarchate of that see. However the specific geography is not important. What is important is that the Church is subject to an Orthodox Apostolic Council of Bishops which we refer to as a synod. My parish is subject to such a synod which is in full communion with the all of the other Orthodox Patriarchates including that of Jerusalem.
Thus generally the answer to each of your questions is yes. Is yours?
“Orthodox Christianity… Proclaiming the truth since AD 33.â€
[blockquote]I feel bad that I’m considered defective. [/blockquote]
You are a Christian and a Child of God, made in His image. YOU are not defective. That’s not what the Pope is saying by reiterating Catholic teaching. He’s saying that all Christian communities outside the communion of the Catholic Church (IOW, not in communion with the See of Peter) lack the fullness of the Catholic Faith. In other words, the Catholic Church teaches that it is the Catholic Church. This should be no more suprising or offensive to you than it is to me that Phil Snyder, as a good Protestant, thinks Catholics have abandoned the Apostolic Faith. Obviously once we can clearly delineate where our differences are, we can start real discussion.
Instrumental (or rather, use of instruments at worship) is neither prohibited nor encouraged in the New Testament. We cannot argue from their absence that their absence is the norm (as in the old archaeological saying “proof of absence is not absence of proof”) — just that no one argued about them during the period the apostles were writing their epistles of encouragement and correction to the Church.
Their presence and their encouraged use in the OT (eg. Ps 150, Protestant numbering) along with the words about the role of OT Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:15-17, suggests that their use MAY be allowed without violation of the spirit of New Testament worship.
That’s my opinion and my stand.
Peace
Jim Elliott
(former folk-choir leader)
too early. This line should have read:
Instrumental [b]music[/b] (or rather, use of instruments at worship) is neither prohibited nor encouraged in the New Testament.
# 31: somebody needs to inform heaven! Revelation 5:8-9
Ad Orientem, you are overstating your case. I’ve attended Divine Liturgy in a number of Orthodox parishes, from Tokyo to Austin, Texas, and I’ve seen the separation of the sexes at only one of them, Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco. By no means is the practice limited to a few more liberal parishes. And instrumental music, at least the organ, is widely used among Greek parishes. They even have (*gasp*) pews, a lot of the time. 🙂
#17: The Catholic Church has nothing to repent of? I trust you are talking about its decision to allow Latin Mass again…and not in general terms…Don’t get me started.
#27, The Answers to the 5 questions as stated by Rome last week were quite specific and not at all suprising, as these positions have been held pretty consistently now for quite some time. The features that really jumped out at me were:
1) Confirming the Eastern Churches (Orthodox) enjoy true faith through Apostolic Succession, but are defective in that they do not recognize the authority of The Holy See
2) Confirming that the Protestant Denominations are not “churches” in strict definition, but ecclesial communities that can certainly contain salvific elements, just not the most perfect combination, which can only be found in Rome.
3) That communion with the Roman Catholic Church is the most perfect expression of God’s intention for mankind here on earth available to us.
4) JP2 had issued a bull which clearly delineated that Salvation was only available through Rome, these answers seemed to soften that a bit, as the admission that salvific elements are to be found outside of Rome was unusually clear to me.
5) That any offer of “The Bread of Heaven” outside of consecration of host by a Roman Catholic Pries is an invalid offer was implied throughout the answers.
It was pretty standard stuff, just Rome re-affirming that they have the exclusive franchise on heaven, no matter what they do. Nothing really earth-shattering there.
After 25 years with Rome, and 20 with Canterbury, I am still amazed how hard it is for the Church to recognize their failings re: The Faithful and to repent. You would think they would be clear by now that since they are lead by fallible creatures, they are going to make fallible decisions on occasion.
Oh well…KTF!….mrb
KTF….mrb
Re 33
Billy D,
Your observations regarding pews and organs in the Greek Church is sadly true. However in defense I will note that there seems to be a growing trend in the GOA away from that. Many parishes are getting rid of them (at least the organs). The local Greek parish in Modesto still has an organ but the priest there does not allow it to be used anymore. The presence of pews is something that is mostly seen in the United States. Back in the day there was a serious stigma attached by Protestants to people belonging to those ethnic churches.. So some jurisdictions made an effort to westernize some aspects of their appearance.
Although this impulse is understandable it is also very regrettable IMO. Thus we have pews in some parishes… some Greek parishes do still have organs, but this has been sharply criticized in the broader Orthodox community and as I said I think they are moving away from it… slowly. Also you will see some Orthodox priests dressed like Roman Catholics with the dog collar. But things are slowly correcting. And it needs to be noted that most of the rest of the Orthodox world has never suffered from these problems.
#34 Mike B, it’s a good thing that Rome doesn’t depend on your opinion, isn’t it? Really, now that you have eveything sorted out . . . . You are right: it is standard “stuff”. And it helps to clarify for the sake of discussion. We did not begin the Church. The rightful claim is with Rome, through Christ, by Christ, and a lot of folks don’t like that. But making the judgement that Rome is fallible while hinting that your judgement about them is on the mark might take a bit of thought before “buying in”. Lots of mistakes, huh? Just look at the bed we’re lying in.
Mike, your #s 1-4 were either right on, or pretty darn close, so I was surprised at how oversimplified your conclusions were following them.
[blockquote]just Rome re-affirming that they have the exclusive franchise on heaven[/blockquote]
Your #2 puts a lie to that conclusion. Salvation IS through the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, however, the Church does not draw a border as to where the Salvific effect of the Church ends.
[blockquote]You would think they would be clear by now that since they are lead by fallible creatures, they are going to make fallible decisions on occasion. [/blockquote]
25 years in Catholicism and you don’t seem to understand the Church’s teachings on infallibility. I’m not really surprised by that, given the poor level of catechesis in the latter half of the 20th century. Nowhere does the Church claim that everything it or its leadership does is infallible. The infallibility claimed by the Catholic Church is vastly narrower than most people think.
Also, your continued use of “Rome” and “Roman Catholic”, are inexact, especially in #5: [blockquote]5) That any offer of “The Bread of Heaven†outside of consecration of host by a Roman Catholic Pries is an invalid offer was implied throughout the answers. [/blockquote] Your #1 contradicts this. Catholics teach that the Eastern Orthodox sacraments are valid. Not to mention the Eastern Catholics (who would vociferously remind you that they are not “Roman” Catholics at all) whose sacraments are not only valid, but they are in full communion with the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church.
#36 Enda, of course our bed is no better, and I wouldn’t presume to assert otherwise! I’m not holding out TEC or Anglicanism in general as the end-all, be-all of theological orthodoxy. I guess (and I KNOW this is going to irritate people, so forgive me in advance, my 2cents, you know) that all my studies over the years have led me gently to the conlcusion that God can put a church “Under Judgement” just as he did Israel in the OT. I think about the Greek Church in the 1300’s falling finally to Islam (it had completely given in to political considerations at that time, breaking every rule imaginable to support the political leadership), Rome in the Reformation (You’ve got to admit, there was a bit of justification in Anglican and Lutheran actions vs. Rome), and now TEC perhaps is under judgement for much worse offenses, in my eyes, that of allowing an attitude DENYING the DIVINITY of Jesus to foment, throwing down the Trinity as “optional”, defining the resurrection as “a fond memory of Jesus friends”, and the like. These are statements that have been made by BISHOPS over the last 40 years, in very public settings, without recourse.
So yes, as the Black Sheep of at least 400 years of unbroken family Roman Catholicism, I have a lot to answer for. But often I am given glimpses of what Rome and the Universal Church could be, and does not achieve, and it really saddens me. Not that I think we don’t need clear boundaries, nothing could be further from the truth, it’s just that I find they have leaned so far over on the Tradition leg of the stool, that the Scripture leg often suffers, and the Reason leg becomes optional.
And some of these traditions enacted to insure polity and communion in the past, addressing situations that have long gone, remain even in the most recent edition of Canon Law, and that’s a burden I think the faithful should not have to bear.
Oh drat! There I go again…..Somebody stop me, please!
Have a great day and KTF!….mrb
#37 Good Points! I was quite unclear in re-reading my posting. When I say infallible, I am trying to refer to the infallibility of interpretation of Scripture and definitions of Dogma claimed by the Magisterium only, via Vatican I in, I believe, the 1870’s. The Cardinal vote where, legend has it, lighting struck the building and blew out the windows at the moment the results of the vote were announced (I don’t know if that’s a legend or not).
And you were quite correct, I oversimplified my definitions of Roman and/or Catholic in the last statement. Sorry about that. I simply get frustrated by the continued claim by the Church that the “Treasury of Grace” is only available in its fullness through Rome. But I shouldn’t let these irritants color my analysis.
So, what were your conclusions of the document? I found little new in it, other than the admission that salvific elements can be found in Protestant and/or Anglican Churches, though I may have missed that in the past.
KTF!…mrb
[blockquote]I found little new in it, other than the admission that salvific elements can be found in Protestant and/or Anglican Churches, though I may have missed that in the past. [/blockquote]
I didn’t really see anything new either, at least not in the way of official teaching. The unpacking of the reasoning behind the switch from “est” to “subsistit” was the most interesting part for me. I really don’t think this document was aimed primarily at the Protestant churches or even at the East. I think this was to clear up two diverging misinterpretations amongst Catholics:
1. The liberal interpretation (vis-a-vis Cardinal Kasper) which takes the change to mean that “hey, the Catholic Church is EVERYWHERE, so no need to try to get Protestants, Jews, or anyone else to convert. They’re already good to go. Heck, EVERYONE’S good to go!”
2. The reaction from the Traditionalist/SSPX types who sees the change to the word “subsistit” to mean the same thing as the liberals, except they’re really ticked about it and use it as ammo against the “Post Vatican II Church” or “NewChurch” or “AmChurch” or whatever bitter label they like to use nowadays.
I think Pope Benedict wants to move the Church into a better “Post Vatican II” age where the Council’s documents are rightly interpreted through the lens of prior councils and Papal decisions. This is really necessary, since the documents use vague language, which, as we’ve seen, are very easily hijacked by folks with an agenda, or an axe to grind.
CM #40, I can say Benedict has given me some pleasant suprises so far, specifically in his book “Jesus of Nazareth”. There is a section in which he relates the Church’s experiences, and our own, to the three specific temptations Jesus had to endure at the hands of Satan. In that section he makes a very distinct point (and unusual for a Pope in my experience) about how the Church has suffered by allowing itself to crave earthly power in the past, and how such power corrupts the message it must project. It was startlingly direct, amid a large theological discourse. Of course, the book is certainly not Magisterial Pronouncement, as he said himself, but I found the admission encouraging none the less.
KTF!….mrb
#38 MB, It saddens me, too, what the Church is called to be and what the Church is, time to time. But it’s Groom is the Christ and its authenticity is, too. Sitting at Newman’s feet in Anglican Difficulties I am convinced of our error(s) in struggling to reform. He speaks correctly in my opinion in his Lecture VI. He claims for the Church the very Catholicity that God provides that keeps it the one organized body , expanded over the whole earth, “an immovable centre to fall back upon.” Thank you for your expanded remarks. The Reformation’s roots were in Rome. It simply went too far in my opinion.
I think the reformation was built on two immovable objects — the Pope’s pride and Luther’s ego. Neither one would have accepted anything but complete capitulation from the other. And so Christianity was further fragmented.
Then once the flood-gates were cracked open, the flood poured through with anyone who had a different theological opinion feeling they were now free to start their own sect. And so it continues. And as we have seen here, there are still those who have inherited the sin of the reformation = pride in ones own theological bent and the resulting accusation that all others are therefore NOT following Christ and the Bible correctly (which IS true in the case of some denominations, such as TEC).
#43 Libraryjim, my recollections of the transcripts of Luther’s interviews and “trial” by the Papacy didn’t quite flow the way of Luther’s insurmountable ego being a problem. He was directed to recant and state publicly that he personally held no belief or placed no stock in anything he had written critical of the Church, specifically against Rome, i.e. say that he lied, or was under Satan’s influence, or was just wrong. They essentially were asking him to publicly renounce everything he had studied and written. He refused to recant, ostensibly because he believed what he had written. He was never asked if he could be mistaken in his analysis, because the things he wrote of, the injustices as he saw them, were plainly church policy and openly declared. His crime was not apostacy or heresy, it was treason.
I got the impression when I read the accounts from both sides many years ago, that no one was more suprised at his excommunication than Luther.
I have often thought, when I study the history of that era, that the Papacy could have easily absorbed Luther’s writings, invited him to participate in commissions on reform (which had been tried with little success in the past, and would be tried again, with limited success) and no reformation would have been forthcoming. AT least for a while.
It also begs the question whether Henry VIII would have felt so bold as to separate from Rome himself, if the movement was not already afoot on the continent. No, from all I have read, my personal (my 2cents, remember) analysis of the situation points to Papal mishandling of the entire affair. And don’t forget the cultural complications of German vs Roman society at that time. The two sides had very different cultures and expectations of Religion. The open culture of debate in German Universities at the time was one of the reasons Luther was so suprised at his removal.
Fascinating stuff, though, don’t you agree?
And I would agree with you, pride is the worst of sins, in that it comes from within, not without. And there is plenty of that to go around, particularly in our beloved HOB.
KTF!….mrb
[i]Fascinating stuff, though, don’t you agree? [/i]
Oh, definately. But there was more than enough blame to go around. I remember watching the Richard Burton version of “Luther” and thinking, man he was an arrogant B@st@rd”. And everything I’ve read about Luther since only confirmed that first impression of how Burton played the role (especially his handling of the ‘peasant’s revolt’).
But that doesn’t let Rome off the hook, either!
Peace
Jim Elliott
um, that ‘wink’ was supposed to be a close parenthesis. I got hit by the formatting code bug!
PS of course Luther was surprised. He expected Rome to cave to his superior spiritual wisdom. 😉
(THAT wink was intentional! )