We Are Taking Back Our FutureChurch!

Over at Catholic Exchange (via Crisis Magazine), Brian Saint-Paul tells us of a new Catholic dissident organization (yippee, another one) that hopes not only to reform the Catholic Church in the United States, but to actually overthrow it.

Take Back Our Church (founded by ex-Jesuit Robert Blair Kaiser) plans on fomenting a kind of spiritual insurrection that will result in a home-grown American Catholic Church that does not answer to the Pope (or anyone else, I assume). Why, or how, they would refer to this as a Catholic Church is somewhat mysterious, but let us press on...

Kaiser is the author of a book titled A Church in Search of Itself: Benedict XVI and the Battle for the Future, the thrust of which Saint-Paul sums up for us;

"The Fathers of Vatican II ushered in a golden age of openness, tolerance, and progressive action. Unfortunately, the dark forces of John Paul II and his diabolical collaborator, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, clamped down on this movement of the Spirit, dragging the Church back to the Dark Ages..."

I know some Rad Trads who may be surprised to hear that...

"In light of this, thinking Catholics need to reclaim their Church — and maybe even start an American Catholic Church of their own."

So, look out, Catholics! Kaiser aspires to be the spiritual Guy Fawkes of the New Catholicism, blowing to smithereens the stuffy parliament of the old Catholic hierarchy in America.

This is the exact opposite of a grass-roots movement (though grass may well be involved). A true grass-roots movement takes shape because large numbers of people share the same idea, want the same things and can make common cause with one another to create change. Kaiser is a contributing editor of Newsweek, and the membership of his organization stands at 580. This is an elitist movement, germinated in the hot-house of American media culture.

Kaiser proposes;

"We will write a Declaration of Autochthony (let's see you pronounce that), one that will challenge our priest-people and our people-people to work out a constitution for the American Church that carefully puts aside the Rome-based secretive, half-vast, culturally-conditioned legalisms codified in canon law in return for the kind of servant Church envisioned at Vatican II."

Never mind that Kaiser would probably run screaming from the room if you showed him any of the actual documents from Vatican II... (I'm melting! I'm melting! Oh, what a world!...)

I find it hilarious that this guy hopes to craft a Constitution after coining such terms as "people-people".

I am also finding it harder to keep track of all these dissident groups. It's confusing. I mean, if We Are Church, why would we need to Take Back Our Church? Why does FutureChurch pine for the good old days of Vatican II?

In a way, I am always a little excited to hear about someone planning to start some sort of independent American Catholic Church because it makes me hopeful that, were such a monstrosity actually to come about, all the kooks would flock to it and leave us regular Catholic folk in relative peace. But then I remember that such a split would no doubt grieve the Holy Spirit, and possibly cause the loss of a great number of souls, and I come back to my senses.

No, better for all concerned if the dissidents never achieve their goals.

Kaiser is on a roll, though, and hopes to expand his organization's meager membership by having all current members e-mail their friends and encourage them to join. You know, like Amway.

Ooh! I shiver as a Shadow grows in Mordor...

GET THE STORY.

Comments

[Jem]

Kaiser is on a roll....pun intended?

[bill912]

Well, we've got the two opposite extremes in these last two posts. Where is the Church? As Chesterton put in, in between the two extremes. Balanced. Sane. Thanks, Michelle and Tim(except for that "Kaiser is on a roll" line. Ouch!).

[Ry]

It's pronounced aw-TOK-thuh-nuhs.

I was unable, however, to find any online dictionaries with definitions for people-people.

[mulopwepaul]

There's nothing stopping these people from forming whatever sort of organisation they like and calling it whatever they like. They just delude themselves that American Catholics by and large will want to leave the actual existing Catholic Church to join them in their progressive wonderfulness.

PVO

[Kasia]

I've been wondering how long it would be before someone did this. Next we'll be seeing articles in the Nevada Appeal saying that "The ironic part is, the Catholic Church was part of the American Catholic Church until a split in 2006."

And I think grass is definitely involved.

[Mark Scott Abeln]

It would seem that these folks are more interested in power than in God, and in getting the Church out of their way.

Of course, radical reforms like this have happened in the past, and nearly always by the use of force.

[Scott W]

I don't anticipate many even so-called progressives leaving the Church for this. By staying in the Church they can play victim or champion of reform beleaguered by intolerant primitives. Outside the Church they are just another Episcopalian.

Scott

[joey]

Lord Froda to the rescue!

[Michael]

You would hope that people would learn from history.

This movement for an "American Church" seems to be nothing more than a resurrected Gallicanism. The majority of German and French bishops at Vatican I voted against the definition of papal infallibility because both parties had a strong desire for autonomous "state" churches. The spirit of German nationalism was strong even before WWI and the bishops of Germany certainly helped its cause in the mid-1800's. The French bishops at Vatican I all received seminary formation that consisted of strong Gallican tendencies, which surfaced with a vengeance at Vatican I. In both the German and French cases, there was a move made to grant autonomy from papal jurisdiction to their respective "national" church.

My point is that it didn't work. The few tiny schisms after Vatican I died out as quickly as they commenced, papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction were solemnly declared, and the centralization of the papacy was as firm as ever.

The same fate, likely, will befall the Take Back Our Church (back from what and where?!?!) movement. I imagine that they'll attempt to use the democratic-like means in which Bishop Carroll was elected and the anti-papal tracts written by Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis as historical pull for some figment-laden "American Church." True, the American bishops were split at Vatican I, but Achbishop Spalding's diplomacy led to a post-conciliar acceptance of papal power in all its form by the vast majority of American bishops.

Evangelical Catholicism

['thann]

We will write a Declaration of Autochthony (let's see you pronounce that)

If they do that, maybe they can adopt Cthulu (equally difficult to prounounce) as their mascot.

'chthann (I'm going to start adding "ch" to the beginning of my name in preparation)

[Ed Pie]

...culturally-conditioned legalisms....

...which are clearly inferior to our American, culturally-conditioned relativisms.

Anymore, to the average person "Catholic" I think is just a particular denominational label, about as meaningful as "Baptist" or "Presbyterian."

What about the other American "Catholic" churches that are already floating about? Isn't that midwestern farmpope non-Roman enough for this guy?

[Old Zhou]

Ecce homo!

Bio blurb:
ROBERT BLAIR KAISER went through ten years in the Society of Jesus, then, three years shy of ordination, left the Jesuits to pursue a career in journalism. He covered the Second Vatican Ecumenical for Time in the 1960s, worked on the religion beat for The New York Times in the 1970s, and served as journalism chairman at the University of Nevada Reno in the 1980s. Three of his eleven published books deal with the Catholic Church: Pope, Council and World, The Politics of Sex and Religion, Clerical Error and A Church in Search of Itself.

Kaiser won the Overseas Press Club Award in 1963 for the "best magazine reporting of foreign affairs" -- for his reporting on the Vatican Council. Editors at three newspapers have nominated him for Pulitzer Prizes, and the book publisher E.P. Dutton nominated him for another Pulitzer for “R.F.K. Must Die!” -- his exhaustive 634-page book on the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, a work that will be republished next year.

Since the fall of 1999, Kaiser has been a contributing editor in Rome for Newsweek magazine. During the conclave of April 2005, he also reported for Newsday and served as a television commentator for Fox, CBS, and NBC, and for a variety of television networks from around the world.

In his reporting on the government of the Church, Kaiser tries to emulate the kind of reporting he has done on secular government, serving the people at large with the information they need to be good citizens – of the Church as well as of their city, state and nation. He says, “Our U.S. society gives awards to the men and women who do that best. Funny thing: totalitarian and corrupt societies don't give journalism awards. They give members of their captive press under-the-table payments to be lazy, or just keep quiet. And they become sicker societies. In the U.S. at least, the Catholic press is a captive press. No one rewards reporters engaged in independent inquiries about the Church’s non-accountability. And so the Church, too, has become a sick society.”

Kaiser says things may be changing. “In light of the U.S. Church’s sex scandal for the past four years, most Catholics, including most American bishops, would say those delegated to serve the people must be accountable to the people." But it’s not too clear that everyone thinks reporters and editors have a duty to help make them accountable. Kaiser obviously thinks they do, and a duty to call the people to account, too.
---

Interview with the guy.

Yawn.

[Rosemarie]

+J.M.J+

>>>The Fathers of Vatican II ushered in a golden age of openness, tolerance, and progressive action. Unfortunately, the dark forces of John Paul II (snip)

Ummm, wasn't John Paul II/Karol Woytjla (sp) one of the Fathers of Vatican II? A major author of Gaudium et Spes, if I recall.

Schism from the Church? You mean like Spiritus Christi? You mean like any number of liberal independent "Catholic" priests out there? "Reinventing the wheel," anyone? *Yawn*

In Jesu et Maria,

[J.R. Stoodley]

"dark forces"? "diabolical collaborator" ?

He won't attract many liberals with that language. I dare say most everyone on all sides will see him as a wacko.

Now if someone more nuaced and charismatic demanded a similar Catholic American Revolution, followed by an American Catholic Constitution and democratic Church, he or she might be more of a danger, especially if we start seeing "conservative" liturgical changes and enforcement of rules against things like admitting homosexuals to seminaries, and the disciplining of disobedient and heretical American bishops by Rome. Get a number of such bishops on board with the Revolution and you could have a significant movement.

[Christopher]

What's depressing to me is that whether the dissident fringe stays in the Church or hops into one of these boxes of Basic 4 (y'know.. a colorful collection of fruits, flakes, and nuts?), their obstinate rebelliousness will continue to endanger their salvation.

It's tough trying to educate people that already think they know everything.

[J.R. Stoodley]

Christopher,

Indeed.

I wonder what endangers their salvation more, leaving the Catholic Church for an organization that better fits their beliefs, or staying in the Catholic Church as a heretic and hoping or even working for its transformation into something other than the Catholic Church.

[Scott W]

Get a number of such bishops on board with the Revolution and you could have a significant movement.

That's a possibility, but I think most would balk when it hit them that they would be out on the curb with no churches and relegated to your typical evangelical tin barn.

[The Waffling Anglican]

If they're looking for "openness, tolerance, and progressive action," why don't they just become Episcopalian? I have a feeling they'd fit right into an organization where so many of us Anglican "people-people" just don't fit at all anymore.

[J.R. Stoodley]

Waffling Anglican,

Some do, and many become United Methodists as well. Many however see Catholicism as part of their culture or ethnic birthright. Or they take the view that if they were brought up Catholic they have as much right to say what Catholicism should be as anyone else. That brings me to the worst variaty, those who are in the Catholic Church specifically to change it. If they joined the Epicopalians they could no longer do the "good" that they are doing in the Catholic Church, trying to make it (modern) Episcopalian or worse.

Scott W.,

Don't the church buildings generally belong to the diocese? I'm not sure, but if so than if the bishop breaks away with much of the diocese couldn't he hold onto the Cathedral and most if not all Church buildings, relegating true Catholics to the tin barns?

[J.R. Stoodley]

That wouldn't be the first time it happened, as Waffling Angilcan knows. Though generally in the past the governments were in on it.

[Scott W]

Don't the church buildings generally belong to the diocese? I'm not sure, but if so than if the bishop breaks away with much of the diocese couldn't he hold onto the Cathedral and most if not all Church buildings, relegating true Catholics to the tin barns?

Yes, but the bishop does not own them. They would be removed from their office, and another bishop put in his place.

[MissJean]

Robert Blair Kaiser's coining of "people-people" was good, but you overlooked the best part of his inarticulate rambling. His ad hoc committee wants a church that abandons "half-vast, culturally-conditioned legalisms".

Half-vast?

That says it all. He and his ilk want to jettison the "half-vast" and give us a half-assed church instead.

[J.R. Stoodley]

Yes, but the bishop does not own them. They would be removed from their office, and another bishop put in his place.

True, but if the diocesan offices and enough priests and laypeople follow the bishop into schism and if they convince the courts that the diocesan properties are still legally theirs despite their split with the "Roman Church" then they will keep the property and the new, true bishop will be offering mass in someone's garage.

[Matt McDonald]

"Yes, but the bishop does not own them. They would be removed from their office, and another bishop put in his place."

That would be just, and proper according to Canon Law, but we all know this would not be automatically recognized by the courts. It would be a long and protracted battle, during which the bishop who holds title would have legal control.

This potentiality may be part of the reticence of the Holy See to clamp down on the US hierarchy, and part of the motivation of the Holy See to normalize the situation of the Society of St. Pius X and establish a "traditional" jurisdiction that is independant of the local ordinaries. The SSPX/FSSP/ICKSP chapels would give the faithful an alternate to any formal schism led by their bishop.

We all know that many bishops here are already in material schism and/or heresy, but
I doubt that a formal schism would be widespread. At the end of the day most bishops will toe the line.

[Scott W]

J.T. and Matt,

On more reflection, I think you may be on to something. That is, I recall a recent ruling (the details of which completely escape me) where a court ruled that while the bishop oversaw a diocese, the ownership was legally the parishoners. This was cheered by Catholics because it would limit massive pillages of the Church by sexual abuse lawsuits, but I wonder if it could bite back if many parishoners rebel. I think I'll ask Jimmy specifically about this.

[Mac]

"The Fathers of Vatican II ushered in a golden age of openness, tolerance, and progressive action ..." BUT the religious teaching of the Church did not and do not change. VII changed some "administrative" works. If any stale Kaiser roll thinks bible morality -- which condemns sodomy, for example --is going to change to be "tolerant and progressive" they are really stupid about Catholicism. VII chaged NO moral Catholic teachings, especially anything related to sex. Another schmatic "church" -- ho hum, they do come and go, and like a kaiser roll they soon become unedible.

[Rhys]

"The Fathers of Vatican II ushered in a golden age of openness, tolerance, and progressive action. Unfortunately, the dark forces of John Paul II and his diabolical collaborator, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, clamped down on this movement of the Spirit, dragging the Church back to the Dark Ages..."

Now just imagine this scrolling into the distance with the Star Wars opening theme music.

Episode V
THE VATICAN STRIKES BACK
It is a dark time for Take
Back Our Church. Although confidence
in the Bishops has been destroyed,
Orthodox Catholics have driven the
followers of the spirit of Vatican II
from their hidden sacred spaces and pursued
them across the United States.

Evading the dreaded Benedict XVI Loyalists,
a group of dissidents led by Robert Blair
Kaiser have established a new secret
American Catholic Church.

The evil Pope Benedict XVI,
obsessed with finding old
Kaiser, has dispatched
thousands of faithful Catholics
into the far reaches of the US....

[Terentia]

Rhys, That was creative and humorous and I would have enjoyed it a lot, except... Tuesday, I was at a Worship Commission meeting at my parish. The topic for discussion was the GIRM and how our new (and orthodox) Bishop is going to force us to submit to it. The discussion sounded just like what you posted. Bad old Rome, namely Pope Benedict and the Curia, is trying to drag us all back to the Dark Ages and prevent any prophetic voices from being heard. The entire liturgy and even the Kingship of Christ were described as being the result of political machinations by power hungry old men whose goal is to push the laity back into the pit from which the Spirit of Vatican II rescued us. I wish this was satire or exageration but it isn't. Two of us tried to speak up. The response was pitying tolerance of our "opinions." Prayers are coveted.

[momof6]

What's a "Worship Commission meeting"? Or maybe the rest of your post answers that question. Prayers are sent.

[Les]

Hey Jimmy, you had a great idea in that piece. An index of dissidents. That would be a handy reference guide, particularly if it listed a brief description of the particular axe each one is grinding.
Would that be mean spirited? Maybe you could make the list and give it some sort of soft code name. "Progressive Catholic organizations ....",
"Spirit of Vatican II list...", something along those lines.

[Les]

Sorry, that should be addressed to Tim Jones. My oversight.

[MissJean]

Oh, Terentia, I will pray for you! That is so awful.

[Dr. Eric]

There are vagante groups like this all over the US, they are usually long on clergy and very short on laity!

[jswranch]

Why doesn't Robert Blair Kaiser simply save himself the trouble and run to the arms of the Anglicans?

[Some Day]

This guy is a nut. (is he a priest?)

But rather thinking on it, not to say I want it unless my hypothesis is true, but that if there is schism in the Catholic Church in the US, but massively, than the true Catholics will rally,
and as the maytrs of many times can prove, when there is persecution and outright schism, the true Catholics regain a zeal they never had before, and that is the begining of a conversion.
Napolean was said to been presented with the question of whether to close the seminaries or not.
He said no because he rather have weak "lukewarm" priests than zealous and devout priests.
Could it apply here? The orginal Americans didn't want Catholics here at all.
Could this be beneficial? Remember this a hypothesis, not a thing I am saying because I would love for it to happen.

[Fifty Eight]

"I know some Rad Trads who may be surprised to hear that..."

I know some non-Rad Trads that would be surprised to hear that.

[Kasia]

Les, while part of me would like to see that kind of list, the PR student in me thinks it would play out in the court of public opinion as "evil stormtrooper Rome-loyal Catholics are blacklisting our poor oppressed 'real' Catholics". Just my opinion.

Some Day, that's an interesting thought. I don't know if it would work out that way, but it is a possibility - after all, one could certainly argue it was the anti-traditionalism of the '70s that brought about our current wave of orthodoxy. It may be a silver lining if this does actually turn out to be a 'movement' rather than a few deluded folks...

Terentia, I will definitely pray for you, your parish, and your orthodox bishop!

[Scott W]

Hey Jimmy, you had a great idea in that piece. An index of dissidents. That would be a handy reference guide, particularly if it listed a brief description of the particular axe each one is grinding.
Would that be mean spirited?

I would not be if it was strictly fact-based. Of course people would still SAY it was mean-spirited.

[Chris Molter]

Y'know, I was praying about this earlier and I came to an understanding about the pervasive heterodoxy in the Church. It's OUR fault. The failure to teach and preach the Gospel and the Catholic Faith over a couple generations has given us these crises. We can keep griping about Kaiser, Chittester and the rest of the heretics trying to make the Church over in their image, or we can find ways (individually and collectively) to fix the problem.

Don't like the way RCIA is being run in your parish? Go talk to the pastor and get on the appropriate committee. Pastor isn't helpful or is part of the problem? Go to the Bishop! Bishops are supposed to be our shepherds. If they aren't fulfilling the calling of their office, then we ought to find ways to strengthen their spirits and remind them of their duty to Our Lord and their flock.

Take extra time out of your day to read the scriptures, the Fathers, good apologetics. I'm sure Jimmy and folks like Mark Shea, Amy Welborn, Al Kimel, etc have plenty of reading lists on their blogs! Educate yourself, pray, and lead others to do the same. Truth is hard to hide, folks. The good thing is that orthodox Catholics have Truth on their side!

Above all, don't lose heart! Keep attending Mass, be active in your parish, pray to Mary for the strengthening of the Church, seek the intercession of the Saints, avail yourself of the Sacraments which Christ gave us for our unmerited benefit. Remember, you're not alone, even if it seems your whole parish or diocese looks like a "Take Back Our Church" rally.

Sorry about the long post, but I get this Dominicanesque surge of preachiness on occasion!

[SDG]

I mean, if We Are Church, why would we need to Take Back Our Church? Why does FutureChurch pine for the good old days of Vatican II?

Genius. Tim, you're freaking brilliant.

Informative, and entertaining to read:

This is the exact opposite of a grass-roots movement (though grass may well be involved).

Kaiser is on a roll...

[Fuinseoig]

Wasn't this already tried? Is not the whole basis of the Anglican Church the idea that, although it is a national church, it is really part of the One, Apostolic and Universal Church and all they did was sever the chains imposed upon them by the bureaucracy over in Rome?

"http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/REFORM/ENGLAND.HTM

When he met with failure, Henry did what every other king would do. He fired his closest advisor. This was an important move. His closest advisor on the matter was Cardinal Wolsey, the Lord Chancellor of England. The negotiations with the papal court were largely carried out by Wolsey. When he failed, Henry dismissed and arrested him and replaced him with Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell. Both these men were sympathetic to the new ideas of Martin Luther. They gave the king some radical advice: if the pope does not grant the annulment, then split the English church off from the Roman church. Rather than the pope, the king would be the spiritual head of the English church. If the King wants an annulment, then the King can grant his own annulment.
In 1529, the English Parliament began to debate this question; this debate would occupy the English Parliament for seven years and so gave it the name, the "Reformation Parliament." It did not settle the matter all at once,but steadily granted powers over the church clergy to the king. In 1531, the clergy of England recognized Henry as the head of the church, and in 1533, Parliament passed the "Submission of the Clergy," a law which placed the clergy completely under Henry's control. In that same year Henry married Ann Boleyn, who was already pregnant with his second daughter, Elizabeth. In 1534 Parliament stopped all contributions to the Roman chuch by English clergy and lay people and, in the same year, gave Henry complete control over all church appointments. Finally, the Act of Succession declared the children of Ann Boleyn to be the heirs to the throne and officially declared the king the supreme head of the church.

Despite all this storm of activity, the English church didn't really change. The average person going to church would see almost no change in the practices or dogma of the church. It was still for all practical purposes a Catholic church; the only real difference that anybody would notice was the use of English Bibles in the church. In 1539, Henry reaffirmed his commitment to Catholic practice by passing into law the Six Articles. These articles affirmed the transubstantiation of the Eucharist (that is, that the Eucharist was mystically transformed into the body and blood of Christ), confession, private masses, celibate vows, and the sanctity of the Eucharistic cup. The only substantive change Henry made merely involved the head of the church. The English church, however, would radically change under Henry's successor, Edward VI."

Same basic idea: we make our own rules, we administer our own territory, we appoint our own bishops, but all this is only a political not a theological change; we're really still keeping the faith as it should be.

But once you start hiving off, and splitting off, and changing this and changing that, more and more comes in.

I can't really see how America is going to benefit from yet another Anglican church, particularly in view of the Current Unpleasantness amongst the Episcopalians and the very real possibility that in the not too distant future there could be at least *three* Anglican Churches of the U.S.A.

Mr Kaiser should just save himself the bother and join TEC (The Church Formerly Known As ECUSA): it seems to be everything he wants already.

[Ann Margaret Lewis]

Didn't we defeat the Kaiser in the Great War?

Oh. Different Kaiser.
--Ann

[LarryD]

To Les - if you get a copy of the book "Call to Action or Call to Apostasy", and I can't recall the author (I think it's by a man named Cloews (sp?)), but it's a great book detailing all the heretical things CTA wants to accomplish. The author has included as an appendix a list of dissident organizations. I'll post later the author's name and when the book was written, but if someone can provide that info in the meantime, kudos!

Of course, I use the descriptive "great" only in the context that the book is informative, detailed and cuts through the verbal gymnastics to clearly define what CTA is about. It's not "great" as in encouraging, uplifting, etc. It's unfortunate that such a book needed to be written. CTA members need to be prayed for, and here in Michigan, they have a pretty extensive network.

[Scott W]

Hey Jimmy, you had a great idea in that piece. An index of dissidents.

How about this? http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/dissorg.htm

Scott

[Steve]

Speaking of "future church", I was just over at James White's website where he was complaining that Envoy was saying bad things about his scholarly work, and a part of his apologia against those waskily catholics was this part of a paragraph:

********************************

Roman Catholic historian and Notre Dame professor Richard McBrien likewise notes that Sylvester "played no part" in the proceedings of the Council of Nicea, that he "did not convene the council," and that even Sylvester's representatives "were given no special status" at the assembly...

*************************************

I don't know about you, but I'm sold.

Is White for real? How can anyone with a shread of honesty quote McBrien on anything catholic?

James White - You are a sham. No wonder nobody will debate the guy.

I must take a small exception to your comment about certain "radtrads" objecting to the Pope John Paul's having taken the Church back to the Dark Ages.

I'm not quite sure what qualifies as "radtrad" in this case.

If "radtrad" on this blog means supporting the SSPX, being a closet sedevacantist, or regarding Archbishop Lefebvre as a flawless individual, I am not a "radtrad."

But if "radtrad" means being deeply disappointed about Annibale Bugnini's overthrow of St. Pius V's beautiful Latin Mass and being further upset with the false ecumenism practiced by the Holy Father at events such as Assisi, or the constant overtures towards the Jews and Muslims without ever telling them that they need to convert, count me a "radtrad."

The term is overused and applied to people who have no business being described as such, and as I posted in another comment and will post here again, I think you should address some of those "radtrad" concerns, considering that these Catholics form a very big element of the Church (something like 1 million plus SSPX at last count).

You did address the Koran incident, but overlooked the obvious point that Pope John Paul repeatedly and continuously, throughout his papacy, said that Muslims "worship the same God" (they don't; the Koran heaps terrible insult on those who worship the Holy Trinity), or invited them to pray, or visited their mosques, but never seemed to speak about the need to convert.

Considering that Pope John Paul II was a remarkably intelligent individual, and considering his apparent affinity for Islam, which his predecessors tirelessly battled against, and while not wishing to put an uncharitable spin on things, I think that such a person taking a visit to an Arab country and being presented by a Muslim leader with a bound, Arabic book might have been able to take a reasonable guess that this was the Koran, and should at the least not have kissed it.

Again, not intending to malign or slander, but this stuff is important and should not be swept under the rug.

[Mark]

If the guy wants to go "whack" it's a free country.

But how could any news organization employ "mr. axe-to-grind" to cover the Church and pretend the reporting is "unbiased" or "impartial"?

This is like hiring Howard Dean to report on the congressional races.

[Tim J.]

"I must take a small exception to your comment about certain "radtrads"..."

Anon-

I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers with my Rad Trad comment, but I thought the preceding quote (about JPII dragging us back into the Dark Ages) provided some needed perspective for those who feel the Church has abandoned her traditions.

It is strange to hear repeatedly that JPII and B16 are close-minded reactionaries who have stifled the spirit of Vatican II, and then ALSO to hear repeatedly that they have sold out the doctrines and traditions of the Church by carrying on the heretical work of Vatican II.

Just a little perspective.

If you accept the documents of Vatican II and the legitimacy of the last several popes, you are probably no more Rad Trad than I am, at least by my definition.

Oh, and apologies to all about the "Kaiser on a roll" thing...

[Scott W]

Again, not intending to malign or slander, but this stuff is important and should not be swept under the rug.

Unfortunately some argue as if nothing less will do than everyone in the Church from Pope to layman signs an affidavit affirming the Koran-kissing episode was a mistake. Not going to happen and it needs to be dropped.

[Brother Cadfael]

Anonymous stated,

You did address the Koran incident, but overlooked the obvious point that Pope John Paul repeatedly and continuously, throughout his papacy, said that Muslims "worship the same God" (they don't; the Koran heaps terrible insult on those who worship the Holy Trinity)...

Do Christians and Jews worship the same God? Clearly we do, although they cannot accept the Christian teaching on the Trinity. That they do not have a completely correct understanding of this God, does not make Him a different God.

The same can be said, obviously enough, for the Muslims. All three major monotheistic religions worship the God of Abraham. Muslims do not understand that God to be Three Persons; they do not understand that Jesus is the Son of God and is, in fact, one of the Three Persons; and they do not understand that God is Love. But they do understand that the One True God is the God of Abraham. That they don't understand other of His attributes and characteristics does not make Him a different God -- it means they do not fully understand the God they worship.

[MJ]

Do Christians and Jews worship the same God? Clearly we do, although they cannot accept the Christian teaching on the Trinity. That they do not have a completely correct understanding of this God, does not make Him a different God..

I'm not sure I understand your point.

God is a Trinity of one Substance: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

If you take a look at the Quran and read up on the vengeful, malicious figment of Muhammed's imagination, which advises Christians and those "of the book" to be killed, calls them the vilest of creatures that will be consigned to hell, and places them--on the Islamic scale of cleanliness--right up there with urine, excrement, and the spittle of an excrement-eating camel, I think you might have second thoughts about saying we "worship the same God."

If you doubt the above, I'll willingly dig up the relevant Quranic verses for you; just be sure to eat a light lunch, as the anti-Christian bias contained within those pages is nauseating.

It's not a matter of the Muslims having an incomplete understanding. Then we might extend the same thing to those who embrace Greek mythology or Hindu spirituality.

Zeus was really God, only "misunderstood" and likewise for the Hindu "Brahman." The same goes with African pagan religions, or even Satanists. Those priests apparently just call him Satan, "but he's really God."

The triune nature of God is inherent to His attributes. A person who puts out a "holy book" where their "god" maligns and slanders anyone who believes in the Trinity is simply not worshipping the same God, no matter how we wish to spin it.

[Kasia]

I don't know what disturbs me more: how many organizations there are on that site, or how many I've personally seen information on floating around southeastern Michigan. (Of course, I have the double hit of having been raised by leftists and currently working in an ivory tower...)

[Brother Cadfael]

MJ,

Would argue that Christians and Jews worship the same God or a different God?

As for the other "gods" you reference, they are not monotheistic, so I don't believe the analogy holds. But in any event, no less an authority than St. Paul has noted that non-Christians may "unknowingly worship" God in their reverence of their own gods. See Acts 17:23.

And for the record, I see no way in which you can reasonably and logically make the connection to worship of Satan. To the extent that reason and logic matter.

[djrakowski]

"I don't know what disturbs me more: how many organizations there are on that site, or how many I've personally seen information on floating around southeastern Michigan."

Kasia, it really is disturbing. But remember, we have the infamous Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton in our midst. For a while, he (and those like him) kept me from swimming the Tiber.

[MJ]

Would argue that Christians and Jews worship the same God or a different God?.

The Old Testament Jews, who had not had the triune nature of God revealed to them, worshipped according to the Mosaic Law provided by God for the Israelites.

The post-Christian, rabbinical Judaic Jews? Your guess is as good as mine.

Theirs is yet another faith whose "sacred writings" excel at leveling the most virulent, appalling blasphemies at Christians, Christ, and the Blessed Mother.

Again, if you can bear the thought of seeing Christ and His Blessed Mother subjected to vicious (and I mean vicious--the very worst things anyone can say about God and His saints, without question) attacks, pick up a Talmud, the collection of rabbinical writings and commentary on the Torah and see what those rabbis have to say about Christ and His Immaculate Mother.

Whether, after reading that, anyone can hold that Jews worship

My comment is not intended to malign the many Jews who have no idea what the Talmud says, because many don't. And there is certainly a key difference between the Jewish and the Muslim conception of God. Modern Jews follow the faith given by Moses which was completed by Christ. They wait for a Messiah already come.

The "Book" that Muhammed composed, on the other hand, seem to comprise no more than the ravings of a pedophile and murderer who lived in a cave in the 7th century and appeared to receive revelations, certainly not from God, and quite possible from Satan, if the violence of his attacks against Christians are anything to go by.

None of the above meshes well with the post-Conciliar "let's all be friends and strive to unite that which cannot logically be united" party line which a number of prelates have toed, but, when one actually picks up that pick which Pope John Paul kissed and reads what it says, we can arrive at no other conclusion.

I submit that Cardinal Law, had he spent an hour with the Quran, could not have strolled into a mosque in 2002 and "celebrated God's goodness" with his "Muslim brethren" without looking like a hypocrite.

We should also allow for invincible ignorance; those born into Islam or Judaism cannot be called unbelievers in the same way that a 1st century Jew who heard Christ, saw His miracles, and then rejected him must be termed.

[Brother Cadfael]

MJ,

You did not answer the question. You made a number of interesting points, but is the God worshiped by the Jews the same God worshiped by Christians?

You can break it up into B.C. and A.D. if you like, or whatever. I'm just trying to figure out what your position is.

We should also allow for invincible ignorance

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what does the invincibility of the ignorance have to do with it. It's either the same God or it's not, and they're either ignorant of it or not. The invincibility would go to the blameworthiness of the conduct, but I fail to see how it changes the nature of the God being worshiped.

He is what He is, whether people are mistaken about it or not.

[Mark]

"None of the above meshes well with the post-Conciliar "let's all be friends and strive to unite that which cannot logically be united" party line which a number of prelates have toed, but, when one actually picks up that pick which Pope John Paul kissed and reads what it says, we can arrive at no other conclusion."

MJ -

Let give our recent Popes a little credit. No one is trying to unite that which cannot be logically united. There is an important difference between "ecumenism" in the broad sense of "mutual respect, toleration, and co-operation among the world religions" and "ecumenism" in the narrow sense of a movement towards unity among Christians.

Pope John Paul earned his first Doctorate from the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome and his second from the Catholic University of Lublin where he assumed the chair of Ethics. Where did you do your theological training?

[Brother Cadfael]

The Great Pope John Paul II will, one day soon, be canonized, and sometime thereafter, he will be proclaimed a Doctor of the Church based in large part on his work on the theology of the body.

That's not infallible of course, so others are free to differ. Just one simple man's reading of the tea leaves.

In the meantime, I believe that he (and Pope Benedict XVI and the other post-Vatican II Popes) should be afforded the respect that the office of the papacy deserves. Christ did not hand the keys of His kingdom to you, He handed them to them. I'm inclined to think He didn't make a mistake.

[Marie]

If we have priest-people and people-people, can we have priest-alpha centaurions (sp?) and people-alpa centaurians?

[Terentia]

Thanks to all who offer prayers. Momof6, a Worship commission is a group of representatives from the laity who lector, usher, cantor and serve as "Eucharistic Ministers" also known as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. We meet monthly for updates, training, etc. Chris Molter: doing what you recommend is what got me on the Worship Commission and made me privy to the heartbreaking scene I described above, not the first such occurance. Despite being disheartened, I am not giving up, at least not yet. I'll stick around as long as God gives me the grace. Thank you again for your prayers

[Matt]

The argument that muslims worship the same God is not new, it was written by St. Gregory VII in a letter to a muslim king. That doesn't rehabilitate Mohammed, or the Koran, any more than a similar acceptance that Lutherans worship the same God rehabilitates Luther, or the 95 theses.

Affording the respect of the office of the Pope does not mean avoiding respectful criticism of such actions as may be cause for scandal, such as the interreligious prayers and the episcopal selections.

Popes in the past have been truly horrible men, we still recognize them as chosen by God, criticizing them is not criticizing God.

[MJ]

Let give our recent Popes a little credit. No one is trying to unite that which cannot be logically united. There is an important difference between "ecumenism" in the broad sense of "mutual respect, toleration, and co-operation among the world religions" and "ecumenism" in the narrow sense of a movement towards unity among Christians.

I suspected that such a comment might come along, so in the interests of full disclosure, let us briefly list those "ecumenical efforts" and see if they accord with the definition of ecumenism presented by past pontiffs. Let me make the note that, in posting relevant links, you might find that some originate from radical sources. If there is photographic and written documentation, it's best not to disregard the source because we disagree with all viewpoints espoused.:

1. The Assisi prayer conferences. This notorious pan-religious meeting of snake worshippers, Satanists, pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, worshippers of the Great Thumb, etc. shamefully convened in 1986 in St. Francis's town.

If you think this is licit, read paragraph 2 of Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos here, where the Holy Father appears to condemn precisely what Assisi was: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P11MORTA.HTM

For that matter, read the whole thing. A Catholic leader who invites non-Catholics to come and pray to false deities--providing rooms for them to do so, and going so far as to remove the crucifix, the symbol of his very mission on Earth--seems to me to have committed a very serious departure from past policy indeed.

Pope John Paul earned his first Doctorate from the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome and his second from the Catholic University of Lublin where he assumed the chair of Ethics. Where did you do your theological training?Please. This is a foolish question and you know it. Many highly educated people have made errors in prudential judgment, and going by 1900+ years of previous standards, an error ni judgment was here made.

The Catholic Crusaders of the 10th-12th centuries shed their blood out of rightful contempt for the Quran and the error it stood for. Some of them, lest we forget, were saints, and a Church Doctor, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, preached the Crusades.

How, then, do you justify the Holy Father kissing the very book that the saints were martyred for not accepting?

[MJ]

More information on the Assisi meetings:
http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=38

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002Apr/apr5mdi.htm

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/what_should_we_make_of_assisi.htm

Again, the only place you're going to find criticism is on those radical sites, because just about every other Catholic site has already canonized Pope John Paul by popular fiat and has no time to pay attention to slips into false ecumenism.

2. The eulogizing of the heretic Luther: http://www.traditioninaction.org/polemics/morriss.htm

3. Referring to the need to convert non-Catholics and heretics to Catholicism as an "outdated ecclesiology" (again, apparently the martyrs and saints did not think so):

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand_txt.aspx

(See number 30; this statement was spoken of positively by Pope John Paul in Ut Unum Sint)

4. Suggesting the creation of a common martyrology with Protestant "saints," in number 84 of Ut Unum Sint:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

Now, were this one or two outlandish incidents, that would be one thing. But again and again, we have what amounts to, in practice, denial of the Truth of the Faith.

When you are the leader of a Church which proclaims the ONLY TRUTH, how can so many opportunities go by, so many meetings with non-Catholics arrive, and never a mention of Christ's Sacrifice, the Blessed Sacrament, the Mother of God, the Holy Trinity, extra ecclesiam nullus salus?

Keep in mind that this is a matter with eternal stakes!

This is not an instance of scientists disagreeing on a theory about trapped null spaces, or diplomats disagreeing about foreign policy.

This stuff is ETERNAL LIFE or death! This is the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ. To invite all these other religions to your prayer meetings and never point out that they are in a precarious spiritual situation is, in my opinion, to do them a disservice.

If Muhammed or the Talmudic rabbis or the African pagans are just as much in possession of the Truth, why pursue the Catholic Faith any longer? Everyone's equal, right? Just be a good person, believe in God, and you're going to Heaven, nicht? (by the way, that last statement, I kid you not, is what my relative repeated to me as his understanding of what the pope said about salvation. 2 of his 4 daughters left the Church and he informed me that the "pope said it was OK; as you long as you believe in God and are a good person, you go to Heaven"; I wonder where he got THAT idea from?)

[MJ]

The Great Pope John Paul II will, one day soon, be canonized, and sometime thereafter, he will be proclaimed a Doctor of the Church based in large part on his work on the theology of the body.

And on what do you base this opinion? Many wonderful popes have never been canonized, popes who, I dare say, have done as much or more for the propagation of the
Faith as Pope John Paul (Blessed Pius IX against Modernism, Ven. Leo XIII, Ven. Pius XII, Pope Pius XI, Pope Gregory XVI on traditionalism, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Clement XII vis a vis Freemasonry, etc. etc.)

Why no clamor for the canonization of Venerable Pius XII, whose encylical Mediator Dei prophetically predicted the destruction of the Faith in the West? How about Venerable Leo XIII, who promoted AUTHENTIC devotion to the Holy Rosary by declaring October the month of the Rosary; he didn't even need to overstep his authority and "revamp" a personal revelation from the Blessed Mother to St. Dominic!: http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20021108_The_Twenty_Mysteries_of_the_Rosary.html

It seems a lot of people take it for granted that Pope John Paul will be canonized. His very public and painful carrying of a cross of deep suffering, his gentle manner, his work against both Communism and Fascism, and his flair for reaching out to people are all to be admired and encouraged.

But that by itself does not make a saint. A saint has a deep love of God and of the Faith--and while Pope John Paul II had both, neither you nor I can overlook the many opportunities given to combat heresy of error, which were passed over to "promote unity," or undertake the "new evangelization" or "pray with our separated brethren" in mosques, synagogues, before Buddha statues and Hindu tombs. Imagine what would have happened if he had ruffled a few feathers and gently encouraged the Jews to open their hearts to Christ? The media would have scourged him! But no matter; they did so anyway with his "archconservative stances" on abortion and contraception.

A pope, by and large, should not be loved by the world. Ven. Pius XII is hated to this day by any number of people. Likewise if Bl. Pius IX hated for his stand against liberalism and modernism, which is now flourishing. And the saintly popes who encouraged regaining the Holy Land with a Crusade? That is the number one example that revisionist historians spit out AGAINST the Church.

In the meantime, I believe that he (and Pope Benedict XVI and the other post-Vatican II Popes) should be afforded the respect that the office of the papacy deserves. Christ did not hand the keys of His kingdom to you, He handed them to them. I'm inclined to think He didn't make a mistake.

Your first statement is true. The office should be respected. Your second statement is an unnecessary attack. Pointing out obvious false ecumenism is not my attempt to arrogate the authority of the papacy to myself. You know that.

The third is also true. But Christ handed the keys to Liberius, to Honorius, to John XXII, to Alexander VI...where are their apologists? Where are their adoring fans demanding instant sainthood?

[jswranch]

MJ said:3. Referring to the need to convert non-Catholics and heretics to Catholicism as an "outdated ecclesiology"
(See number 30; this statement was spoken of positively by Pope John Paul in Ut Unum Sint)

4. Suggesting the creation of a common martyrology with Protestant "saints," in number 84 of Ut Unum Sint:

Thanks for the link to UUS, it is my first time to see it.
However, I really do not see JPII wanting a to canonize the Prots from Fox's Book of Martyrs alongside Thomas Moore. I do see JPII recognizing some Prots killed following Christ in the past and present. In making your conclusion, you are taking the paragraph out of context which instead should be read in light of paragraph #83, with which we can agree.

Second, the words "outdated ecclesiology" appear nowhere in UUS.

I fear your desire to find error in JPII is producing a scholarship nearing Jack Chick quality. Also, you fail to understand that Catholic doctrine/devotion/discipline develops. Look at the 1,800 years it took to figure out Mary was sinless from the moment of her conception. Another example of this is how the church has found the best way to reconcile heretics, which it revealed at VII.

[Dean Steinlage]

MJ,
On all the various "Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran" posts, yours and others, I've wanted to know:
a) what should he have done
b) what do you think the repercusions of this act would be.

Given the reaction in the Muslim corner of things over the (false) story of a Koran being flushed at Gitmo, the violence from him refusing or even just handing that book off to someone else would be even more horrid than now.

I think our previous holy father lived with the shadows of WWII and communism for a long time and saw them both as failures in love and understanding.

I fall in on the kick-in-some-teeth side way to often, he didn't.

[patrick]

I just have a few comments on this one:
1. The name, "American Catholic Church" is an oxymoron, very much like 'Godly Atheism'.
2. This guy thinks that V2 is oh so great, yet blames JP2 for 'dragging the Church back into the "Dark Ages"'. Since JP2 is in V2, should'nt this guy blame V2 as well? Another oxymoron. and that "Dark Ages" stuff is just invented by 18th century people who thought they were more advanced than Medieval people, while the contrary is true.
No wonder why i've heard that humans are devolving back into monkeys,(not that i believe it) Crazy things people do to have their own way... O Fathers of the Church, please intercede for this guy.

P.S. To those who're arguing about John Paul II, please talk about it in a nice manner. I'm not Mr.Akin, or any other writers in this blog, but if the argument goes out of hand, it's an ugly sight. So please handle the argument with care.

[MO]

I do see JPII recognizing some Prots killed following Christ in the past and present.

Hence, the problem. Shall we retroactively declare Arian, Nestorian, Donatist, or Monophysites who died for Christ "saints"?

Second, the words "outdated ecclesiology" appear nowhere in UUS.

They appear in the Balamand Statement, which I linked to, a joint Catholic-Orthodox statement.

I fear your desire to find error in JPII is producing a scholarship nearing Jack Chick quality.

I have no desire to find error in Pope John Paul. I used to be one of his uncritical fans. Then, as false ecumenical gestture upon f.e.g. piled up, I had to confront reality and note that he was doing what past popes said should not be done.

Also, you fail to understand that Catholic doctrine/devotion/discipline develops. Look at the 1,800 years it took to figure out Mary was sinless from the moment of her conception.

The Blessed Mother was always sinless from Her conception, but this was not dogmatically defined until 1854. Many Fathers and also saints throughout history arrived at that conclusion pretty much on their own anyway.

And Church doctrine regarding ecumenism does NOT develop in the way you describe.

We do not "suddenly discover" that those Muslim, Jewish, and Protestant errors weren't really all that bad after all and we should go and pray with them.

Another example of this is how the church has found the best way to reconcile heretics, which it revealed at VII.

And that way is? (Does the post-VII Church even use the word "heretic" anymore? I would have thought that a new phrase such as "our painfully separated yet still really united brethren in Christ" would be used)

"The Catholic Crusaders of the 10th-12th centuries shed their blood out of rightful contempt for the Quran and the error it stood for. Some of them, lest we forget, were saints, and a Church Doctor, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, preached the Crusades."

The crusaders shed their blood in defense of Christian pilgrims and Christendom. They did not do so because the Quran was an error (of course it was) but because Muslims used war to further their cause at the expense of Christ's people. If they had not done so, the Crusades would not have been necessary.

http://www.lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=38

Read this site a little, it is by no means radical, in it the author defends Benedict XVI, Vatican II, and even the validity of the Novus Ordo.

"Look at the 1,800 years it took to figure out Mary was sinless from the moment of her conception. Another example of this is how the church has found the best way to reconcile heretics, which it revealed at VII."

This is a protestent lie, why would you repeat it on Catholic blog?

[bill912]

The Church never defines a doctrine until it is challenged. That is why the Church didn't solemnly define the doctrine of the divinity of Christ until the 4th century, the doctrine of the 2 natures of Christ a century of 2 later, or the Immaculate Conception until the 19th century; those doctrines weren't challenged until then.

[Charlie]

In a way, I am always a little excited to hear about someone planning to start some sort of independent American Catholic Church because it makes me hopeful that, were such a monstrosity actually to come about, all the kooks would flock to it and leave us regular Catholic folk in relative peace. But then I remember that such a split would no doubt grieve the Holy Spirit, and possibly cause the loss of a great number of souls, and I come back to my senses.

I believe the Holy Spirit would just roll his eyes... He has probably heard it all before... so He can handle it in stride...

[Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B.]

The authentic "FutureChurch" is in the Creed:
. . . exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum
et vitam VENTURI saeculi. Amen.

"I expect the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the age THAT IS TO COME. Amen."

[patrick]

It's been done before. That guy's merely doing an American version. I'll bet this movement will only last for some time,If it ever becomes a large group. I just hope he doesn't become like Jim Jones, and make every members of his to immigrate to some remote place where He can rule them. Just hoping he won't poison them though.

[patrick]

P.S. By 'Its been done before' I mean those groups who broke away from the Church while still proclaiming themselves Catholic (Very much like Anglicans, as one poster pointed out.)

[patrick]

p.s. (Last one, promise) If the above postscript seems offensive to some, I'm really sorry. That's all, God bless You.

[Kevin from Ohio in Virginia]

You know as soon as someone refers to the "dark forces of John Paul II" that you needn't read any further. It's too bad that so many fail to read the passage about the gates of Hell not overcoming our Church. God bless her.

[Hans]

"extra ecclesiam nulla salus" ("no salvation outside the Church") is not necessarily to be understood that or is not false or has not changed--if the Church is defined as the Church invisible and we do not always understand how the Churhc interacts, so the individual being saved is being saved by the Church but does not or may not know it is the Church saving him
The Church has been called the Bride of Christ as well as Christ
Jesus can save people as he sees fit, their belief in a specific, albeit and even if true intellecutal postulate or formulation of dogma (not to dimish that importance) is not the only way to know or try to know Jesus the Christ

I am not trying to be wierd or new age, as I believe that the Catholic Church is the fullness of Truth, and Truth is not relative but objective, eternal and absolute. I believe in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, the Apostles Creed,
However, being truly Orthodox does not mean that anyone who is not officially a member of the Roman Catholic Church is going to hell, nor does it mean that we do not have to respect other religions or even recognize similiarities.

God is God (the maine doctrine of Islam) and God being God it does not matter how we define him (per se it matters as He wants us to know him) God does not change depending on a Calvinist paper or the preaching of an Imam (and there are similiartities between Calvinism and Islam)
I went to an Eastern Orthodox Mass (there was no Catholic one around) when I was in the service and was by the border of Syria, the Mass was in Arabic, they said the Arabic word Allah in the mass to connote God (as does the "venacular" Novus Ordo Arabic mass) While there are some Jack Chick comics that state Allah is the Moon God and not God, Allah is the word for God, now I reject Islam as perhaps a demonically (if Mohammad was interacting with a spiritual entity that he thought was the angel Jibril/Gabriel) but a reasonable reading of Islamic theology certainly indicates that the Arabic word for God, as interpreted by Islam is the One God of Abraham (as they explicitly claim) and not a pagan Moon God. While their certainly is a rejection of the Trinity and the incarnation and that is false, that does not mean they do not pray to God or that God (who knows everything, sees everything, and hears everything) does not hear their prayers. Allah is the word for God in Arabic, Muslims and Christians have different conceptions and interpretations of God (that does not mean they are equally or all right, the Islamic one is in error) but that does not mean that Allah is not God or that Muslims pray to a different God or an evil entity. It is the same God even if we (Catholics) have the fullness of the Truth.

[J.R. Stoodley]

This is how I see the whole "no salvation outside the Church" thing. Everyone baptized is a member of the Catholic Church. Everyone living who is not baptized is outside the Catholic Church and therefore is headed for damnation if God does not intervien. As it happens, it seems that God does in fact take away the Original Sin of those who die in it but not in personal mortal sin, so they end up in heaven too, despite not having ever been justified in life.

Those who are validly baptized (whether they realize they are joining the Catholic Church or not they are) may then reject the Catholic Church by herecy or schism and thus separate from it, while still remaining members of course. Such people, if they do not repent, will not be saved. However, if they are not sufficiently culpable then they will not have indeed separated themselves from the Church and so they are accounted amoung the Catholics (though they don't know it) and hence are saved. It seems we may expecially have hopes that those born into separated Churches or ecclesial communities between the distorted charicature of Catholicism that they may be taught the rejection of which would be just, and the possible lack of a personal decision to reject Catholicism, may be saved because of their ignorance.

That said, either I recieved an unusual grace, or as soon as a Protestant is presented with an authentic representation of Catholicism he or she will be given the grace to believe it, which they will either accept or reject. If they reject it and persist in that rejection to the grave then they will not be saved. This saddens me and makes me fret over the salvation of my Protestant family which through me and others I believe have a very good idea of what Cathoicism is.

[matt]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

All that SHOULD be said by any Catholic on "Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salas" is in this letter, we are instructed not to speculate on the internal state of anyone. Let's not risk damage to anyone's soul by trying to save muslims or protestents by including them in the "invisible" Church, let's exhort them that they must join the visible Church.

no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
...
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

[J.R. Stoodley]

italics

[Brother Cadfael]

Matt,

All that SHOULD be said by any Catholic on "Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salas" is in this letter, we are instructed not to speculate on the internal state of anyone. Let's not risk damage to anyone's soul by trying to save muslims or protestents by including them in the "invisible" Church, let's exhort them that they must join the visible Church.

I believe that you have missed the distinction between evangelization and proselytization; the Church mandates the one and frowns on the other.

But in any event, the visible Church cannot be separated from the invisible Church; they are one reality. It would be clearer to say that persons might be joined to the visible Church by an imperfect communion. (See Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1.)

[The Leper]

An index? I thought it was a good idea myself.
http://cromabu.blogspot.com/2006/08/wee-ahlredih-gat-hwahn.html

[J.R. Stoodley]

The problem with an index whether or not to include groups like the Jesuits who are great leaders of the liberal dissening movement but are not inherrently heretical and still contain some very orthodox members. If you include such orders and other groups you will be casting more suspician on the few good members, while if you exclude them you will end up with a very incomplete and perhaps deceiving picture.

Also the whole affair seems to hint at playing Magiterium.

Still, maybe it would be worth it to list the actually schismatic groups. Might be a good idea to include conservative schismatics on the same list, maybe under a different heading.

[matt]

"I believe that you have missed the distinction between evangelization and proselytization"

What I said was "let's exhort them that they must join the visible Church". Here is the definition of exhort:

ex‧hort  /ɪgˈzɔrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ig-zawrt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object) 1. to urge, advise, or caution earnestly; admonish urgently.
–verb (used without object) 2. to give urgent advice, recommendations, or warnings.

As far as proselytization. It's original meaning is simply to attempt to convert someone to ones own belief, of late it is used to describe illegitimate means of doing so, as opposed to evangelization. Do you consider urgent advice, recommendations, or warnings to be illegitimate??? I should think not, since scriptures and writings of the saints are full of these.

Of course there is only one Church, you should note by my quotation marks that I was only using the understanding of the previous poster to distinguish between those who are visibly members of the Church, and those who are not visibly members.

Did you truly misunderstand my meaning here?

[John]

If the church taught before the Council (V2) to many of the faiths outside the Catholic church that they could not be saved unless within the church, only to recant this teaching after 1965 years to the applause of the Protestants and even the Jews-what is to stop those from joining schismatic groups (many here I see trad bashing) if the church now teaches that even Moslems (should be revered) and Hindus and Buddhists who deny Jesus can be saved

It is totally contradictory and is itself the entire problem with the council and all she has brought to the church

[Some Day]

Tsk tsk tsk...
John, the thing is that you can't be saved without being Catholic. That is, being Baptized.
Unless you are Baptized, you are not going to Heaven. Those 1965 "proclamations"simply, in bad spririt, brought out the fact that a non-Catholic might become one implicitly through Baptism apart from the Sacrament.
It might appear that it is a recant. It is not.
It is simply making a vague possiblity look probable. This is not a reverse in Catholic Doctrine put a fall from the Catholic sense of things. That is like priests who say "God is Mercy", which is true, but in the context that he most probably wants to people to see, like that God doesn't condemn a person, it is false.
Possiblity is seperate from probablity.
If a pious young person like the one that spoke with Jesus did everything in the Commandments, yet was not able to leave the worldly goods, imagine a non-Catholic. It won't be a needle and a camel but a dinosaur and an electron.

[Matt]

"Those 1965 "proclamations"simply, in bad spririt, brought out the fact that a non-Catholic might become one implicitly through Baptism apart from the Sacrament.
It might appear that it is a recant. It is not.
It is simply making a vague possiblity look probable. This is not a reverse in Catholic Doctrine put a fall from the Catholic sense of things."

The documents of Vatican II do not make the possible probable, why they leave open the potential if taken out of context of Tradition that they do so. This is not the correct hermaneutic.

[Brother Cadfael]

Matt,

Maybe I misunderstood your previous post. Sorry. But I definitely do not understand your last post. Can you clarify?

[Justin]

the idea that one can be saved "outside" the Church (or rather not know he is inside the Church) is NOT new nor is it post Vatican II
READ THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
Also, it is NOT new to respect non-Christian or non-Jewish or non-Monotheistic philosophy, even pagan philosophy which has serious error it is
Saint Justin Martyr (that all truth comes from God)(and yes it was pre-Christian but certainly contemporary with Judaism) it is not some modern, progressive, goofy Jesuit, post Vatican II 1960's and 70s Catholicism it is very ancient Catholicsm
It is NOT syncretic, ecclectic, Assisi, 1980s but serious Medeival bishops and theologians.

Plato believed in transmigration of souls (reincarnation). Socrates (called a saint by some) may have had quasi-homosexual pedophilia practices which were common at the time. Even Aristotle justified slavery, and thought women were vastly unequal to men (Plato was far more egalitarian). Pythagoras also believed in reincarnation and overemphasized mathematics. The mathematics interplay is interesting in Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle forms the logical concepts for Aquinas and "modern" canon law and theology. Was Aristotle saved? Was Plato saved? Plato may have known the Pentateuch. Was Socrates saved? Is Pythagoras in hell? This is not the view of Clement of Alexandria nor St. Jerome. Many of the early Church fathers/elders studied and respected Aristotle and even more so Plato and Socrates, and many had huge influence form Plato (the Aristotle influence did not really come until Aquinas--who got the texts from Muslims) These seminaries, and theological discussions centered around Greek philosophy (and Roman and Zoarastianism (remember the Magi who visited baby Jesus--are they in Hell/they were not Jewish nor Christian and according to Marco Polo their graves in Tehran BUT Zoarasitians with dualism etc)as well as Mystery religions) again not borrowing for the sake of borrowing or not recognizing the truth of the Logos but ALL truth is from God and that we are not afraid of truth and there was much truth in the ancient world outside of revelation from Sacred Scripture to the Hebrews.

This idea that from 33AD to 196something that all other religions were heretics, or that there is no wisdom or anything to learn in any other cultures (culture and religion are almost interchangeable according to Catholic Harvard Historian Dawson), or that so called Monosphytes or schismatics were not allowed at Vatican Councils is all nonsense.

As a brief sidenote, Lutherans were invited to the Council of Trent. So were Copts (who did not accept possibly for political reasons the Council of Chalcedon) Actually, the Coptic patriarch was called Prestyr John even after he was corrected, this was not Copts in union with Rome (although there was that possibility, and briefly they were Latin rite during Portuguese intervention which caused a revolt)these Copts participated, were invited, and were not in full union with Rome.

Agostino Steuco was a bishop and the Vatican librarian in the late 1400s and early 1500s. He was an Augustinian and the expert on ancient and specifically semitic languages for at least one Pope during this time (possibly others)
Steuco had a book called Philosophia Perennis (remember that he had access to the "secret" books and ancient texts and was a student and teacher of Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac, and Cuneform, what was known of Hielogryphs, and even Akkadian script) which to him was none other than the Philosophia Priscorium but under a new appellation. Steuco asserted, and did more than implied (was a bishop, THE Vatican librarian, a regarded theologian, was never NEVER condemnded nor excommunicated although certainly criticized) he asserted that wisdom was originally of a divine origin (what the Eastern Rite Catholics call Sophia--the reason that Emporer Justinian made the Hagia Sophia Church in Constantinople--the Holy Wisdom, sometimes by analogy Mary, the Seat of Wisdom, the Wisdom of God, but yet in a feminine form at least by gender of words) this knowledge of a divine origin, a sacred knowledge handed to God to Adam which, for most human beings was gradually forgotten (even pst the fall) and turned into a dream surviving only and most fully in the prisca theologia. This true religion and philosophy, whose goal is theosis (the word is used more commonly in Eastern Catholic circles) and theologia. This religion or philosophy, whose goal is theosis and and attainment of sacred knowldege, the true theology through spirituality the science of God (through Jesus Christ and his Church not through direct gnosticism), but believed to have existed from the beginning of human history (even before the Covenant with Abraham or the revelation at Sinai), certainly before Christianity and the incarnation of God as Jesus (true God and true Man)BUT/AND this sacred knowledge/revelation is "outside" the "Church" and "Biblical revelation" as that this sacred knowledge IS attainable through either the historical expressions of truth in VARIOUS traditions OR by intellectual intuition and "philisophical" contemplation (a la Aristotle). He was most criticized NOT mainly by sectarian interpretations of Catholic Christianity of which he was a biship and theologian BUT from/by the prevalent humanism of the Renaissance at that time. There were others but not as Orthodox (at that time) such as Nicholas of Cusa (in his De pace fidei which I reject as too syncretic), Ficino, and Pico della Mirandola (who had dabbled in the so called Christian Kabbalah) Certainly there is some heterodoxy here BUT not with Agostino Steuco (not to say he is perfect either)
IS Orthodox and his ideas make sense.

There was monotheistic ideas in Egypt (before King Tut), and even Babylon, even Pat Robertson in his interesting tape on the names of God recognizes a monotheistic name and concept in China, some American Indian religions had a monotheistic concept, a separate Creator, and not just a Pantheistic or polytheistic notion as assumed or with some other American Indians (although not pantheistic there are panetheistic (with an extra e) or potentially panetheistic) Let alone all the great things from Plato and Aristotle (Truth, self sacrifice, from Plato a sense of the supernatural and afterlife, from Aristotle the idea that it is logical to have a Prime mover and the logical probability of Creation ex-nilhio--different than most Greek mythology and cosmology at the time)
God could well be working in ancient Egyptians, American Indians, or anyone else at anytime (including after the time and space of the Word becoming flesh)

God created a specific Church, and a specific way to worship, and physically becomes bread and wine and humbles himself in bread and wine, BUT God can also operate as He sees fit, and can save as He wants because he brings to the Church and we may not always know it, that does not mean we do not Evangelize or Prostelytize (don't care about the semantics both are good) We do want to convert. BUT our conversion of others or the lack thereof does not exclude them necessarily from Paradise, not does it not mean that they do not have any Sacred Knowledge.

[matt]

Br. Cadfael:
In response to my post suggesting we should exhort protestants and others to visibly join the Catholic Church, you suggested that I was confusing evangelism with prosetylisation. Did you misunderstand the meaning of "exhort", and think I meant some sort of illegitimate form of evangelization?

Justin: God created all men, and embedded in our soul certain knowledge of Him, this is the natural law. Speculating about some sort of supernatural revelation outside of the the Canonical Bible, or approved Catholic mystics, isn't prudent, for it implies that the Catholic Church is not the way of salvation for all, that some are supposed to find salvation elsewhere. This is contrary to the constant teachings of the Church, which says that only a perfect love of God, and invincible ignorance could excuse one from not finding the Church, and through Her, Christ.

The search for "sacred knowldege" (gnosticism) resulting in some sort of deification or salvation is not consistent with Christianity.

As far as various fathers, and notably St. Thomas' respect for the ancient pagan philosophers, that respect for their understanding did not extend to any declaration of their salvation, or damnation. In fact, the Church does not speak of anyone's damnation, and avoids speaking of anyone's salvation save for the saints of the Church, who are all visible members of the Church, or Her precursor the nation of Israel (the Old Testament fathers).

[Brother Cadfael]

Matt,

In response to my post suggesting we should exhort protestants and others to visibly join the Catholic Church, you suggested that I was confusing evangelism with prosetylisation. Did you misunderstand the meaning of "exhort", and think I meant some sort of illegitimate form of evangelization?

It has little to do, as I see it, with a dictionary definition of "exhort." I have seen Catholics "evangelize" by "exhorting" their non-Catholic friends to join the Catholic Church because they are going to hell if they do not do so.

While that type of "exhortation" is certainly within your statement, it is not necessarily what you intended. Thus, my apology in the last post.

I also do not know what you mean by "legitimate" and "illegitimate." The above would be a good example of proselytization, and not evangelization, in my estimation.

[Brother Cadfael]

Justin,

the idea that one can be saved "outside" the Church (or rather not know he is inside the Church) is NOT new nor is it post Vatican II

Nor is salvation "outside the Church" legitimate or taught by Vatican II. One cannot be saved outside the Church because union with the Body of Christ is the very means by which we are saved.

I admit I could not read all of your post, but the vast majority of it seemed to deal with the salvation of pre-Christians. I don't see the relevance to this discussion.

[Justin]

Salvation of pre-Christians to note that salvation "outside" the Church is possible (the Church, the Word in particular) pre-existed time, and thus it is not outside the Church.

Matt, I am NOT talking about gnosticism in the heretical sense (all gnosis means is the word for knowledge nothing bad per se). I am talking about NATURAL LAW that Aristotle and Aquinas both state can be ascertained not only through logic and deduction but also is inscribed in the hearts of men as Aquinas and Plato state, and that reflection and meditation (not personal revelation)can help discern some of this truth which has been clouded by original sin and other sins. There is inherehent and intuitive knowledge that is not personal revelation and is outside Israel and "outside" the Church. There is sacred knowledge in other religions, salvation is not possible outside the Church, but how one is outside the Church is what the question is. "outside" and "church" are the words that can be interpreted.

[Brother Cadfael]

Justin,

Salvation of pre-Christians to note that salvation "outside" the Church is possible (the Church, the Word in particular) pre-existed time, and thus it is not outside the Church.

I don't mean to be offensive, but if you would write in complete sentences it might help others, or at least me, understand what you are saying.

I take it to mean that: If pre-Christians could be saved (assuming ignorance) that others could be saved even now if searching for the truth (like Plato)and are ignorant (truly ignorant for whatever reason) of the Catholic faith in all her totality. So, if pre-Christians could be saved so could non Christians now (possibly or potentially).

[John]

The teachings during and After Vatican II are clearly not the same as what was taught earlier, as the council fathers make it clear that we are NOT the One true church and only "subsist"

In Unitatis Redintegratio - the Decree on Ecumenism it is stated:

"Yet almost all, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, that truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the gospel, so that the world may be saved, to the glory of God."

At the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism, Vatican II teaches that almost everyone longs for a truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel. What is the truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel? So what is Vatican II talking about then? Why is Vatican II teaching that almost everyone longs for one the truly universal Church of Christ when we already have it? What Vatican II is teaching at the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism is that people must long for the true Catholic Church because it does not yet exist! It is teaching that the true Church of Christ - the universal Catholic Church - does not yet exist! For those who doubt that Vatican II was here denying that the Catholic Church exists we will quote pope John Paul II's own interpretation of this passage.

John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 5, 1996, speaking of prayer with non-Catholics:"When we pray together, we do so with the longing 'that there may be one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God' (Unitatis Redintegratio, 1.)."



Further quotes:Unitatis redintegratio :

"Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of Catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons and daughters who, though attached to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full Catholicity in all its bearings."

Here in the same decree on ecumenism, Vatican II denies that the Church of Christ is fully Catholic! Then how can one even say the Apostles Creed: "I believe in... the holy Catholic Church." You would have to say, "I believe in the not fully Catholic Church."

"Cardinal" Joseph Ratzinger, On Vatican II's teaching on the Church: "Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church..."

Therefore, if Vatican II's decree on ecumenism denies that the Roman Catholic Church is the universal Church of Christ (which it does) by longing for such a Church to exist, it follows logically that Vatican II would also teach that"the Church" (i.e., the universal Catholic Church) is not able to fully realize its "Catholicity/Universality", due to "divisions among Christians." In other words, according to the clear teaching of Vatican II, divisions among the countless Protestant sects, Eastern Schismatic sects and the Roman Catholic Church prevent the universal Church (of which we are all members according to Vatican II) from realizing fully its Catholicity (universality).

All of this is definite confirmation that Vatican II taught that heretical and schismatic sects make up the Church of Christ.

That being said Pope Clement VI and Pope Leo XIII to condemn this awful statement of Vatican II.

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
"We ask: In the first place, whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of THIS SAME ROMAN CHURCH, WHICH ONE ALONE IS CATHOLIC, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM."

[Brother Cadfael]

Anonymous,

One does not necessarily follow from the other.

But the fact that non-Christians who are invincibly ignorant may be saved is, of course, well-established. As is the fact that such salvation occurs through a communion, however imperfect, with the Church.

[Tim J.]

This WAS a post about a liberal dissident group.

Some apparently think that the entire post-conciliar Church is a dissident group.

I have only this to say on the subject of Who Is Going To Hell-

I won't presume that any individual is going to hell, but I won't presume, either, that as a Catholic, I am assured of getting to heaven. If angels can end up in hell (and I can't help but think of that passage from the Revelation, where the dragon's tail sweeps a third of the stars from the sky), then any of us might do the same. We have only to make our souls an intolerable dwelling place to the Holy Spirit.

It is for a reason that Mortal Sin is called Mortal Sin.

If a Catholic (with the Sacraments, the Scriptures and the teaching of the Church) can be lost (which is certain), then won't someone WITHOUT these things be lost that much more easily? If I fear hell for myself, shouldn't I fear hell more for those outside the Church?

It's a dark world, but as Catholics we at least have a torch.

We shouldn't become complacent about the plight of others who have to deal with the darkness on their own by telling ourselves "Well, I heard that fellow is in possession of a wet matchbook, so he may get on well enough.".

[Brother Cadfael]

John,

At the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism, Vatican II teaches that almost everyone longs for a truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel. What is the truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel? So what is Vatican II talking about then? Why is Vatican II teaching that almost everyone longs for one the truly universal Church of Christ when we already have it? What Vatican II is teaching at the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism is that people must long for the true Catholic Church because it does not yet exist! It is teaching that the true Church of Christ - the universal Catholic Church - does not yet exist!

Neither Vatican II nor the Holy Father teaches that the Catholic Church does not yet exist.

All of this is definite confirmation that Vatican II taught that heretical and schismatic sects make up the Church of Christ.

No, it is not.

That being said Pope Clement VI and Pope Leo XIII to condemn this awful statement of Vatican II.

Neither Pope Clement VI nor Pope Leo XIII condemned any statement of Vatican II. Indeed, it would have been difficult to do so, since Vatican II took place after their deaths.