In this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors, Jason and Christian test out their interview skills on one of their oldest and closest friends, Michael Hernandez. After trying to figure out why Michael would choose to be gay with all the girls who were throwing themselves at him in high school, the DXPs do their best to determine if this choice of his means eternal darkness or whether or not God may spare him since at least he’s not Agnostic. (Sorry, Christian.) They reminisce about their good old days as bigoted fundamentalists and aspiring professional bowlers, acknowledging that Michael probably “bumped the twig” quite a bit more often than they did. Christian tries to get to the bottom of why marriage is important to the gays (or to anyone for that matter) while Jason offers his views of how Christians should treat the gay community. Christian refuses to accept Tom Cruise as gay and Jason refuses to accept Neil Patrick Harris as straight, while Michael is unsure about Christian after his behavior at a gay bar last summer.
Also, we highly encourage having a gay friend so that you can at least say, “I have a gay friend.”
Podcast #375: Kylie, Kyle, and the Self-Defense Defense
Podcast #106: Suffering, Significance, and Pokémon Go
Podcast #235: Debriefing about the Brain & Consciousness
Podcast #248: Friendship and Deconstruction
Yay! Two casts in the same week! (3 if you count the Bad Christian interview)I’m glad to see you guys starting to do interviews.
Shit.
When will this be available via iTunes?
They’re working on it! Technical difficulties…
There was a glitch with our host and I’ve republished it. Hopefully it will be available within the hour. 🙂
Aauugggaa
Yessss! I just bought some whiskey and rum last night, *and* an unexpected podcast is here! God is good! 🙂
I’m at #37 now (when Christian is _literally_ drunk) and so far I stuck to going one by one, but I might listen to this now because I’m so curious.
Jason – Adam had no kids before the fall.
(And Jesus had no kids at all.)
Adam probably didn’t exist. 🙂
See there are miracles!
Oooo la la! Two in one week!! Best surprise I had all day! Good stuff today – hits home. There are gay people in my life that I love a whole lot. It was awesome to hear your authentic questions as well as to get perspective on the dual identities of gay and Christian. Thanks to your friend, Michael, for his willingness to be interviewed and for his fair and honest answers.
When I lived in LA for 4 years I also heard all the “everyone in Hollywood knows Tom Cruise is gay” rumors. However, Tony Ortega has been covering Scientology for years and some of his sources have been privy to Tom’s “auditing files”, and Tony Ortega doesn’t think Tom is gay. Travolta on the other hand………
In fact Tom’s first wife is the one who got Tom into Scientology. She thought it would help him with his major flaw of promiscuity…..with women! http://tonyortega.org/2015/04/12/how-scientology-broke-up-tom-cruise-and-mimi-rogers-the-story-you-havent-heard/
If I were a gay, I would totally mask it by straightsexing loads of women. . . .
But when would you have the time to be gaysexing men?!
Jason and Christian,
So after listening to your interview with the Bad Christian guys (which was great), I listened to their interview with Shane Claiborne. Shane advocates for an incredibly challenging way of life for Christians; he is amazing. However, something he said kind of resonated with an idea expressed in your interview with your life long friend Michael. On the topic about whether or not it was okay to be rich as a Christian Shane said something along the lines of:
“It is always about love. Sin is refusing to do what love requires. … It’s not that rich folk don’t care about poor folk, it’s that they don’t know poor folk. It is a relational disconnect.”
It is about not separating yourself from others. There isn’t two kinds of people (Jew/Greek, friend/enemy), there is only one kind, and you are suppose to be loving them, to be in community with them. I think this goes right along with what Jason was saying about Dick Cheney softening views on homosexuals, because of his daughter.
If there is a group of people that you are uncomfortable with, or even hate, maybe you should try to get to know someone from that community. I think we all want to separate ourselves from “others”, we must push against this mentality.
I think Christian demonstrated the truth of this in his story about giving money to a homeless person (many podcasts ago) and being drawn into an (initially) unwanted conversation with him. He came to realize that he was just another person just like him. Christian expressed embarrassment at his initial desire to avoid talking to him. I can understand this impulse. While I don’t think I’m racist, I definitely can be classist from time to time.
We have to remember that everyone has dignity. That is an objective truth rooted in our shared bearing of God’s image. You can not give dignity to someone else (an idea rooted in a sense of superiority/paternalism), they already have dignity, you can only affirm it.
Lane,
I’ve always had a problem with, let’s just call it, the Dick Cheney defense. Bigotry should not be tolerated period. Whether Cheney or random person a knows a gay person in their life or not does not give them the right to judge and condemn homosexuals/homosexuality. I know it’s a lot easier to sympathise with something when it becomes personalised but why hate/judge in the first place?
I think it’s admirable that you call for people to become familiar with things that they’re uncomfortable with but how realistic is that to expect?
Greg,
Bigotry should not be tolerated period.
Ha! That sounds like a very bigoted (intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself) statement! 😉
I don’t want to justify reasons to hate someone, even if they themselves are hateful. I want to understand them and love them. This is my ideal – I am not good at it by any means.
…why hate/judge in the first place?
I understand the sentiment. But this seems to be a very common (universal) problem. Just asserting that it shouldn’t be a problem doesn’t address it (although a necessary step). Thinking that you yourself aren’t part of the problem, doesn’t address it.
I think it’s admirable that you call for people to become familiar with things that they’re uncomfortable with but how realistic is that to expect?
Realistic? I think it is, at least in some cases. All I know is that this seems to be the most effective way to stop hating a group – to actually come to know people from that group, to realize that “they” are really apart of “us”.
I’d really be curious to see know how many of the folks from our religious high school were now agnostic, atheist, or some religion other than American Evangelical Christian and how many stayed.
Christian,
I think it would be interesting if you guys did some sort of poll of the audience to see which groups are listening. (fundamentalist, evangelical, reformed, liberal Christian, traditional Catholic, liberal Catholic, theist, new age, agnostic, atheist, anti-theist,…)
Lane –
Hey, you gotta break some eggs to make an omelette. If I hurt a bigot’s feelings, honestly, I don’t have a problem with that.
We far too often cut people slack for their ignorance. But as my friendly neighbourhood police is so fond of reminding me, ignorance is not an excuse.
Don’t get me wrong though, I definitely am on board with your idea about more education and more awareness. I am just realistic/cynical about how many people would actually go out of their way to bring awareness to themselves. Ultimately, tolerance should be our default position. Not intolerance.
Aren’t fundamentalist and evangelical basically the same thing? And what the hell’s an anti-theist? Colour me confused.
Fundamentalists are evangelicals with a stick up their butt. They are the ones with a lot of strange rules such as dress and hair cuts, and young earth creationism is absolute must for example.
Anti-theist are the fundamentalists of the atheist world. There are plenty of atheists who don’t care whether or not you believe a god. An anti-theist, thinks that religion IS the cause of most of our problems and are actively trying to rid the world of it.
For example, Christopher Hitchens claimed to be an anti-theist.
Fascinating podcast and interview, Jason and Christian. Even when I was a Reformed Baptist, five-point-Calvinist, semi-fundamentalistic Protestant, I didn’t look at active, lived-out homosexuality as The Worst-Ever Sin That Would Send You to Hell Faster, Or More Surely, Than Any Other Sin. In that light, it’s honestly hard for me to relate to what you guys describe of your past mindset in your long-ago days at Calvary Chapel.
I will admit, with shame, that when I was an adolescent agnostic, I made fun of homosexuals, as did most of my friends, but it wasn’t a religious matter, because I wasn’t religious. It was just because I don’t understand homosexuality and thought it was weird.
I have gay friends now, and I also roomed with a gay guy, for two semesters, many years ago in college, and the “gayness” was basically a non-issue between us as roommates. I will say that at least one of my current gay friends doesn’t like to identified by that term at all, because he finds it to be a reductionistic way of speaking and thinking about himself as a human being. He’s also a celibate Catholic who agrees with, and strives to live by, the Church’s teaching on sexuality and on other matters.
As for whether Michael will go to Hell or not, personally, as a Catholic, I can’t say, and I don’t *want* to say. I don’t know him personally, I don’t know his heart and, thus, I don’t know the degree of his moral culpability for *any* sin, period. I do think that *I* could end up in Hell just as much as anyone, and I actually think that it’s *more* likely that I could go to Hell than many people, because I bear a greater responsibility than many people, having come to be aware of, and accept, what I believe is the fullness of Christ’s truth in the Catholic Church.
A few thoughts on Jason’s (seeming– I could be wrong) view that all people *will* ultimately be reconciled to God and saved– from my understanding of the Church’s teaching, Catholics can *pray* that that He will lead all souls to Heaven (in fact, we do), but it is *not* Church teaching that this *will* definitely happen. If we say that all people *are* going to go to Heaven, then, logically, it seems that we’re saying God will override even the free choice of people who don’t *want* to be with God eternally. The Church does teach free will, which logically means that human beings can choose God or oppose Him– in this life, in each action, and eternally.
Christopher, I hear this argument about God not bringing everyone to heaven because that would be overriding their “free will” a lot. My question though is… if God is who you think he is and is as amazing and wonderful as you think he is and heaven is as great as you think it is, do you think that there’s anyone who really wouldn’t want to be there with him? Perhaps all God would need to do is correct mistaken people’s misunderstandings of him and his ways and then they’d want to be there. No overriding of the will necessary. After all, Philippians says that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. It seems at that point that each one of those people would want to be in heaven, and yet God is going to cast them into hell against their “free will”?
A friend I had ales with the other night observed that “universalism is only possible in the context of some sort of Calvinism (i.e., the will of God being sovereign over ours).”
Christian,
What if the person receiving punishment, after being perfectly shown the evidence and understanding the Just punishment, bows knee to the Judge, acknowledges His Lordship, and accepts the punishment willingly?
Jason,
Maybe. Purgatory being in play theologically does open some hopeful possibilities though. I pray for purgatory for all! Where people upon being judged accept their judgement as willful (finite in duration) penance and not as unwillful (infinite in duration) punishment.
Lane,
I think you may be missing my point a little. I was addressing this comment from Christopher:
If we say that all people *are* going to go to Heaven, then, logically, it seems that we’re saying God will override even the free choice of people who don’t *want* to be with God eternally.
Is anyone going to make a “free choice” to spend eternity in hell? I’m not “choosing” hell. I don’t believe the Bible. If I’m wrong, then it was my logic and intellect and fallen nature that let me down. I have no desire to be in hell for eternity, and if “God” casts me into hell, he’ll be doing so very much against my will once I have clearer understanding.
I’d much rather him override my “free choice” and bring me into heaven than override my choice to go to heaven made with clear understanding once I have seen my misunderstanding. Why is it not OK for god to override our “free choice” we make without clear understanding, but it’s not OK for him to override our choice we make with clearer understanding?
Christian,
I think I caught your point, I just didn’t like it. 🙂
My comment was describing a scenario where a person comes to an agreement with the Judge about the verdict.
I will agree tentatively (since I don’t know what Hell actually involves, and not having all the information myself) that it might be better to have your free will raped, than actually being raped for eternity.
Only God knows what you really understand clearly and what you don’t understand. And a Just God, that knows you better than you know yourself, will take everything into account. And any judgement rendered will be Just.
In my case, I want absolutely nothing to do with Justice. I beg for Mercy!
One hell of an interview guys! Really interesting stuff.
1. You guys spoke quite a bit about brainwashing. “We were brainwashed into believing in hell”, “brainwashed into believing homosexuality is a sin” etc. etc. What do people who are *not* brainwashed look and act like? I ask, because it seems like you both hold to just about every position religiously and politically as I would expect from the average west coast liberal. Are you sure you didn’t just trade one program for another?
Its ironic, because im sure I hold about every position politically and religiously as YOU might expect from a conservative Texan! 🙂
2. I thought it was interesting how Michael (and the two of you) seemed intent upon equivocating a persons identity with their sexual preference . This is who i am. This is how God made me. “Gay people” are like this or that…. I feel like I would hate it if people did the same thing with my sexual preferences.
Q. So Kenneth when did you decide to come out of the closet as being a masturbator?
A. Just last year actually…
Q Tell me, when was the first time you ever thought about pleasuring yourself?
A. Ever since I was a little boy actually. I didnt know what it was then, but as i grew older I began to realize just what was going on.
Q. Did you have anyone you could talk to about your identity as a masturbator?
A. Yeah, sure, in certain situations. We would joke about it in locker rooms and stuff like that.
Q. When did you realize that it wasnt a choice?
A. Well, i went through seminary praying these urges would leave one day. They never did. After I graduated it started to really sink in. This was not a choice. This was just who I am. It’s how God made me. I never really had any other choice but to be a masturbator.
Yall probably wont agree but the whole thing strikes me as bizaar. I know in some Christian circles they describe gays as “men and women who suffer from SSA (same sex attraction) rather than wrapping their entire self identity with a particular sin.
3. Jason seemed to mock the idea that homosexuals committed a Sin with a capital S…. but surely that’s exactly what you believe as a catholic? That there is such a thing as mortal sin? You said that you “wouldn’t care” if one of your kids “became gay” other than you would be sad that they would have a hard life. Really?!? Thats all you would be concerned about? I couldn’t tell if you were just trying to be nice to your friend or if you really don’t believe what the Church teaches on homosexual acts.
4. I really dont understand this weak ass catholic response on hell. Are yall really so eager to sound cool to nonbelievers? Do you actually think that your hipster and innovative spin on hell is going to inspire them to convert? Anyone can read that the bible teaches hell is real and populated. It makes absolutely no sense at all that God would go through all the trouble of founding this special Church and writing a divine book even though absolutely everyone everywhere would be in heaven anyways. Retarded. You are remaking God into the image of some soft, cuddly, grandpa that unconditionally loves every single person just the same. It’s just nonsense. Is it any wonder that the Church has lost its mission?!? Lord help us.
OK thats it for my rant. I really did enjoy the interview though! lol
Christian,
In my view, and I think this would be in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church, the reason that Heaven is even *desirable* is because Heaven is eternity spent in the presence of, and worshiping, the God of the Bible. The reason that I don’t want to be in Hell is because it means eternity spent apart from the God of the Bible. Is that the reason that you don’t want to go to Hell, if Hell exists? If not, what is the reason?
I do think that God can correct your mistaken understandings of Him. However, are you currently willing to admit that your understanding of the God of the Bible *could* be seriously mistaken– not just theoretically, not just in the abstract, but really, concretely, now, in this life? From many of the things that you say about God in the podcasts here, you seem to be fairly sure that your understanding of Him and His ways is correct, and that He is a one seriously messed-up monster myth of a God.
I used to hate the God of the Bible, or at least, my (mis)understanding(s) of Him. He corrected many of those misunderstandings and is still doing so. That is part of why I love Him and want to be with Him in eternity. However, there are still things about Him that I don’t completely understand. There are things in the Bible which do trouble me.
However, I don’t believe that my finite understanding trumps God’s infinite understanding. Even with the troubling things that I don’t fully “get” in the Bible, when I consider that Christ died for me, and for all people, while we were yet sinners, before we ever cared about Him, before we even *existed*, I have to love Him. I’m not *forced* to love Him, but I have to love Him because of what I do understand about Him. What I don’t understand, He may still correct in this life. If not though, I’m not going to wait to worship Him.
Scripture says that man lives one time and then faces judgment. If I’m not willing to love God and submit myself (including my understanding of Him) to Him in this life, I’m not sure why I would want to be with Him for eternity. It may be that He gives us a last chance to submit ourselves to Him at the time of our deaths. I don’t see Biblical evidence for that though, and I’m not taking that chance– *not* because I live in cowering fear of Him, but because I don’t want to waste my life by *not* submitting myself to Him (in my understanding, that would be wasting my life).
Jason,
What you mentioned is one of a few reasons that I reject universalism as a *certainty*– it would seem to entail a Calvinist conception of God *in certain ways* which the Catholic Church simply rejects. I do *hope and pray* for as many people to be saved as is possible given the existence of free will. However, in the end, Scripture and Tradition both teach that God *will* respect our eternal choice to be with Him or not. If He doesn’t respect our own choice but forces us to be with Him, then He is, it would seem, more of a cosmic rapist than a perfectly loving, Divine Father. I would not force any of my possible future children to be with me for eternity if they did not want to do so. To force them would be less than loving.
Kenneth,
To be perfectly clear about where I stand on Hell, I stand with the Church’s teaching. As I just wrote to Jason, I hope and pray for as many people as possible to be saved and spend eternity with God– as many as possible, that is, given the existence of free will.
I do fear that there will be many people in Hell. I could be one of them. My story is not yet finished. (When I say “fear,” I mean it– not with gloating but with trembling at the possibility. Ultimately though, I trust both God’s mercy *and* His justice, and I trust that each person, including me, will receive what God knows is truly fitting.)
Jesus certainly seems to say that many will go to Hell in Scripture. “The way is narrow, and few find it.” However, we don’t know how many, or how few, constitutes “few” in *Jesus’s* mind. When people seemed to press Him for some kind of statistics on the population of Hell, He simply exhorted them to follow God, and persevere in grace, truth, and obedience. In other words, as He put it, “Strive to enter in.”
I do accept the Church’s teaching that active, lived-out homosexuality is a serious sin. I also accept the Church’s teaching that many sins that I often give in to are serious sins. Ultimately, I can’t judge the *subjective culpability* of people whom I don’t even personally know for their sins, whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual.
I know of some people who seem, for all the world, to be “former homosexuals” who have turned away from it, and, over time, have come to be attracted to women, even to the point of marriage and children. I know of other homosexuals who are, not always easily but joyfully, living celibate lives in obedience to the historic Christian teaching on homosexuality. Of course, I know of many homosexuals who don’t believe that homosexual sex is sinful at all, and thus, they don’t see any reason not to do it. I’m not cavalier about the Bible’s teaching on it. I’m willing to carefully, thoughtfully talk about it to people who are willing to listen. However, I’m not God, and I’m not able or willing to judge subjective culpability for sin, especially when I don’t personally know a certain person or group of people.
Christian said, “… Perhaps all God would need to do is correct mistaken people’s misunderstandings of him and his ways and then they’d want to be there. No overriding of the will necessary…”
Bingo!
And much thanks for the podcast. I enjoy it(most of the time). 🙂
Grace and peace to y’all.
Nothing will change your mind, so this will be my only post in reply,
1. Brainwashing implies uncritical acceptance of ideas or doctrines by a subordinate individual as being taught by a person with power or authority. Often through repetition and denial of exposure to other points of view. So, no. No brainwashing. Just the acceptance of a another paradigm based on the available facts and evidence. If those facts and evidence change, the belief system will as well. My own paradigm shift in politics occurred in 2007-2008 when the fruits of conservative economic policy came due.
2. Perhaps it only seems that way because you are using homosexuality to define them. All of the gay people I have known and been friends, co-workers, and neighbors with have been normal people. (Go figure!) They don’t prance around with a giant “I’M GAAAAAAY!!!!” sign. They talk about their jobs. They talk about their families. They mow their grass and keep up their yards. They hang out with friends. They give to charity. They go to church. They adopt kids and are good parents.
And yet, for many Christians, none of that matters as much as the fact that the person they married has the same naughty bits. Once they find that out, everything else is secondary. They’re an abomination. They’re morally corrupt. They are anti-God and anti-Christ. They are going to be tortured by God forever for daring to love someone instead of choosing solitude and/or misery.
3. I’m not Jason, but yes, I do mock the notion. Biblical morality is dubious at best. (See slavery, genocide, and rape.)
4.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Fred Phelps would agree.
Your version of God is a twisted Torquemada except he’ll have the pleasure of torturing his victims forever. (Now I do fully expect a multi-paragraph defense telling me that Torquemada was really a misunderstood saintly dude. Don’t disappoint.)
Comrade
I think you have blended cults with brainwashing. The definition of brainwashing from my dictionary reads…
any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion:
brainwashing by TV commercials.
I’m not sure, but don’t you think that any group or institution could effectively brainwash someone? If you live in the west coast, and you generally hold all the positions everyone in the world would generically expect from a west coast liberal, are you really a free thinker? Maybe. I just don’t see how the person who is an evangelical Christian getting “brainwashed” by sermons and readings is qualitatively different than the guy who gets brainwashed by Maher, Stewart, and company.
I would not do such a thing on principle! I was only noticing that michael, jason, and Christian seemed to imply that “gay people” are sort of defined as human beings by their sexual preference. Statements like “it’s not a choice this is who I am ” or “This is how God made me” particularly stick out.
I loved the way you phrased that. “By daring to love someone”. Lol! Your liberal brainwashing is showing through! Obviously many people are repulsed by homosexuality and do not approve of the lifestyle. That’s their right. It’s a free country. People with same sex attraction are free to have sex and everyone else is free to not approve. If their religion teaches such acts are sinful, shameful, etc. they should be free to preach that from the pulpit and hold that position. Freedom for all 🙂
Christopher,
No one should ever deem to judge another person’s subjective culpability. However, you shouldn’t shy away from telling people the truth about their situation just because it’s not nice. It is perfectly accurate to say “homosexual acts represent a serious sin that damns men to hell”. If that’s what the Church teaches, and you believe that proposition is true, it is actually very UNLOVING not to tell them so. Masking and confusing the Churches actual position with talk of “subjective culpability” or musing on God’s love overcoming all obstacles just serves to confuse the matter. Just tell the truth and let the Holy Spirit handle the rest.
Kenneth,
lol! Just throwing grenades!
I would echo pretty much all of Christopher’s response to holding orthodox beliefs of hell and homosexual practise. I expressed hope in hell being nearly empty – but given the visions of hell at Fatima – that hope isn’t very large. I guess I could yell sections of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God at non-believers, but we are called to be gentle, aren’t we?
Of course homosexual acts are objectively a mortal sin, which only ~4% of our population engage in regularly. However, last time I checked, skipping mass on Sunday is also a moral sin; which ~2/3 of “Catholics” engage in regularly!
Besides, my beliefs of sexual mortal sins (homosexual acts, fornication, adultery, porn, remarriage, contraception, mastrabation,…) pretty much hit everyone in our culture; you can say I’m equal opportunity.
Kenneth,
I’m not “masking and confusing the Church’s actual position with talk of ‘subjective culpability’.” The Church’s teaching is that certain sins are, objectively, mortal, soul-damning sins, but that, in order for one to be fully culpable for these sins, certain criteria must be met. There must be a full understanding that a particular sin is a mortal sin, and there must be true consent of the will to the sin. There must be deliberate intent to commit the sin, *knowing* that it is a mortal sin. Do the sexual acts of all, or most, or half, or one-third, of active homosexuals meet this criteria of subjective culpability? How in the world would I know? I’m not God. I can’t see into peoples’ hearts.
I’m not trying to mask or confuse the Church’s teaching. I’m *sharing* that teaching here. Sometimes, from your comments here, it seems that you are convinced that you know how to best articulate and present the teachings of the Church, and that anyone who is lacking in that area, in your eyes, should be happy to receive a lecture from you on it. I trust that you mean well. brother, but this is how you are coming off, at times, to at least this Catholic who is not ashamed of the Church’s teachings.
Christian,
You said in an earlier thread to me:
Of course, I don’t know what prompted your apostasy. I do believe you when you say that wanting to sin was not the impetus, but that it some intellectual problem that undid it for you.
However, having known several atheists and agnostics that have fallen away from Christianity. I do find this response pretty convenient. Especially considering now that you aren’t a Christian any longer your accepted morals do not line up with orthodox Christian morals at all! It be one thing if an apostate continued following natural level morals (such as chastity) following apostasy, I however am not aware of any who do. I want to say I do believe you; it’s just very convenient.
Christopher,
I wasn’t meaning to lecturing you. I think that you have been very clear, articulate, and accurate in your presentation of Church teaching. I was voicing my frustration with church leadership in general, ecumenism, and the interview where one can listen to an entire conversation and never once get the impression that the Church stands against these acts! I read back over my comments and can see why you thought I was addressing you specifically. I type these on the fly from home and sometimes it’s not very clear! My bad
Christopher,
To understand what I was trying to communicate, substitute the word “you” with “we”!
Lane,
Especially considering now that you aren’t a Christian any longer your accepted morals do not line up with orthodox Christian morals at all!
Which of my morals is so out of line with Catholicism? Is it my helping the poor and showing love and compassion to almost everyone I meet? Is it dedicating myself to taking care of my family? I can guarantee you I’d be one of the most honest people you would ever meet. The only thing I’d have to do to bring my personal life in line with what I guess we’re now calling “natural level morals” is marry my long time girl friend, and if I was at all convinced that Christianity were true, I’d have zero problems with that.
The bottom line is that I think Christianity is ridiculous. It’s silly to me, along with most other religions I’ve heard of! Sorry there’s not a more nefarious motive behind my dismissal of it, but that’s it. That’s it for a lot of people and you’d get a lot further with people by accepting that than by being so arrogant as to act like the only legitimate rejection of Christianity is some desire to be a “bad” person and hating “God”.
Christopher,
I do think that God can correct your mistaken understandings of Him. However, are you currently willing to admit that your understanding of the God of the Bible *could* be seriously mistaken– not just theoretically, not just in the abstract, but really, concretely, now, in this life? From many of the things that you say about God in the podcasts here, you seem to be fairly sure that your understanding of Him and His ways is correct, and that He is a one seriously messed-up monster myth of a God.
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Am I willing to forsake my own understanding and embrace something that makes no sense to me? Why would I do that? And if I was going to do that, why Christianity? Why not another religion that doesn’t make sense to me? Surely, this can’t be what you’re asking.
Kenneth,
1. I prefer “indoctrination” as I believe it to be different than brainwashing. Anyway, perhaps we’re juts products of where we live, which is why we’re arguing about Christianity and not Islam. I’m sure indoctrination happens in almost any environment. However, as I’ve mentioned before, another level is added when hell is threatened if you don’t believe what is being taught and you’re bombarded with the same ideas and told to meditate on them and read them every day and sing about them and surround yourself with people who believe them, etc. I may be liberal but I have tons of conservative friends. You may not know this, but Washington is half conservative. I find myself in political discussions with them quite often. When I was at Calvary Chapel as a kid (an experience you’ve not had I’m guessing), I hardly knew anyone who wasn’t an Evangelical, and if I did know someone, I certainly didn’t spend a lot of time with them.
2. I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Our point in interviewing Michael was to talk about being gay in a fundamentalist, Christian environment. Do you think that when the three of us walk into a restaurant, we make sure the waitress knows that he’s gay and we’re straight? This was an interview about a specific topic.
3. I don’t care about this. Ha.
4. I don’t think Jason nor I say anything with the intent to sound “cool” to any particular group of people. It’s pointless anyway, since there will almost always be at least half the people that we don’t sound cool to, so that’s a bit of a low blow in my opinion.
Anyone can read that the bible teaches hell is real and populated. It makes absolutely no sense at all that God would go through all the trouble of founding this special Church and writing a divine book even though absolutely everyone everywhere would be in heaven anyways. Retarded.
Anyone? LOL. You really live in a bubble.
Christian,
1. No I didn’t know that about washington! I was under the impression that it was a perennial blue state. I guess roughly 40% of Cali is conservative too so it shouldn’t be a suprise. Don’t secular liberals watch maher, sing secular worldly music and read newspapers and books that indoctrinate them in the same way?
2. I thought the interview was great! I think the most interesting thing about you 3 was who you are and your life experiences in general. You are some pretty interesting dudes. It just seemed like some of the language yall used conflated a sexual preference with personal identity. “This is who I am” so on and so forth.
4. I am just so fed up with liberal christianity/catholicism. It’s so watered down and uninteresting. The goal of liberal christianity seems to be to make the entire religion match with the culture. Like some kind of ridiculous camaflouge (AS IF you all aren’t fully aware what’s really being taught and said in our sacred books and traditions).
You know that what the Bible says about hell. Don’t act like these liberal mental jumping jacks are persuasive 😉
Christian,
You come across as an honest genuine loving person. I hope nothing I said made you think I thought otherwise! I feel like I’ve gotten to know you guys over the last couple of months, and I really like you both! I hope we can friends. However, don’t be surprised if I give you hard time about being an apostate, at least once in a while. It is from a caring place after all!
The fun one’s of course! Such as your view on marriage, your view on divorce, your view on sex outside of marriage, your view on contraception, your view on homosexuality, your view on porn, your view on drunkenness… I’m sure you line up quite well with most of what our culture currently thinks is the most wonderful virtues at the moment, but those do not equal all of Christian/Catholic virtues/morals.
I wasn’t trying to be arrogant. I think a lot of people fall away for all sorts of reasons. And I believe you when you say that what did it was intellectual.
Christianity is ultimately about mercy offered for repentance, so don’t be shocked if I bring up repentance. If you don’t think you are sinful, you won’t be repentful. If you aren’t repentful you won’t ask for mercy. If you don’t ask for mercy, you will receive justice. You do NOT want justice.
A perfectly reasonable justification for not believe something. I think Catholicism is reasonable, I wouldn’t believe it otherwise. Maybe you’ll change mind, maybe not.
I think you’ve just summed up what Christianity is all about with your final statement: Fear.
If you don’t toe the line: eternal torture.
If you don’t act now, while God’s supply of ‘mercy’ lasts! Torture forever.
If you do act now… why God might still torture you anyway because He’s God and who the heck knows what that crazy guy will do? He might not like the church you joined. He might not think you were sincere in saying the magic prayer. He might not like the way you said those Hail, Marys. You might have jacked off one too many times.
Fear and control.
Comrade,
I think you nailed it. That is exactly how an unregenerate person would view christianity.
Think of it like this…. you ask two people what police and the law are all about. One is a criminal and the other a hardworking every day american. The first person would see the police in much the same way as Comrade sees God and Christianity. Why? because for people who don’t have an interest in the general good, and whom only want to look out for number 1, the police are all about control and threats and prison. Yet, to the everyday citizen its a GREAT thing to have a cop as your next door neighbor. Cops are all about keeping the peace, bringing justice, etc. etc. What something is “all about” can so many times depend upon who is doing the evaluating.
NOT that comrade doesnt have an interest in the general good. I was talking about the criminals lol
You don’t get out enough. Much of Christianity’s appeals to unbelievers is steeped in fear. Many Christians live their lives afraid of God and God’s wrath, that they weren’t sincere enough in their faith, that they lack piety, that they did commit one too many sins to truly be a real Christian.
The construct of natural law and the supposed benefits of living according to the Christian-lite version of the Mosaic law or the more evangelical promises of “God’s perfect plan for your life” are later introductions or constructions around the foundation of “Do what we say now or face eternal torture.”
Bad analogy. The last time I checked, the police do not dispense life imprisonment plus bamboo shoots under the fingernails for every crime ranging from jaywalking to murder. Your concept of God does. There is no punishment that fits the crime, but a sentence of unending agony, pain, and misery await everyone from Stalin to a child who dies unbaptized and unregenerate.
If the police had the power to dispense life sentences plus torture for any crime, you wouldn’t want one living within a 1,000 miles of you.
As I said, Hell turns God from a just and loving Father into a brutal and sadistic Torquemada.
Comrade,
I’ve attended many different kinds of churches in my lifetime and each and every single one of them praised God from their hearts out of love. These people are motivated by a desire for reconciliation and relationship with their Creator more than any fear of hell…. but of course when I say this I’m speaking of people who actually love and know God. To everyone else I’m sure it’s all about fear, control, torture, etc. They view God in just the same way criminals view the police.
Your allegation that hell is a punishment that doesn’t fit the crime is an assertion. So, I will just return the favor and say that hell is a perfectly just punishment and no one there gets an unfair deal. Perfect justice is served to those who do not know or love God and perfect mercy is given to those God chose before the foundation of the world. Again, all those whom love God and His commands see Christianity as being all about love, mercy, paradise, forgiveness, joy, etc….. but I’m sure for people trapped in their sin it looks quite different.
Kenneth,
Thanks for the clarification on your earlier comment. If much of your frustration is with Catholic Church leadership and with ecumenism though, I’m not sure what to say, because, while there *are* undeniably some doctrinally wacky priests in the Church, and even some Bishops who don’t seem to believe in all of the official teachings, ultimately, Vatican II *did* happen, the documents do exist (and they contain some very helpful *development of Catholic doctrine*, not contradiction of it), and the Church is simply not going to go back to a Jansenist-ridden distortion of the faith that emphasized sin and Hell far more than God’s grace and mercy– a distortion of the faith which was never *officially taught* by the pre-Vatican II Popes and Bishops but which did plague the Church in the Western world so much, at times, that more than a few lay Catholics constantly lived in fear that God was just gleefully waiting for them (and others) to commit sins so He could “zap” them and banish them to Hell!
That’s not the Biblical God– it’s a distortion of the Biblical God, and it’s one that far too many Catholics suffered under for years. Again, that view of God was never officially taught by the Church, but just as is the case today, the Magisterium’s teachings weren’t always understood accurately and embraced and taught by every Catholic priest in his local parish. From some of our previous conversations in other places, I know that you think the post-Vatican II Church is beset with all sorts of problems that didn’t exist in the “good old days” of Catholicism (whenever that was), but there really never were any “good old days.”
You seem to think that most current Church leadership focuses far too much on God’s love and mercy. In parishes where sin and Hell are *never, ever* mentioned in homilies at all, I would agree with you that that is a serious problem. However, when the Church officially teaches that certain sins are mortal sins, but that there is a thing called subjective culpability, which, in some cases, can diminish culpability for those sins– the Church is not downplaying the reality of sin. The Church is working out how to think about, and deal with, sin in various cases. That was part of the development of doctrine that happened at Vatican II, and it was and is a good thing.
Christian,
I certainly don’t think that it’s reasonable to ask you to embrace something which makes no sense to you at all. Maybe, because of your fundamentalist Protestant past, and how you were taught to interpret the Bible in it, your view of the Biblical God is so negative that you can’t see, at all, why I think He is so wonderful. Most of the things that you say about God in the podcasts, in terms of how you think of Him now, I can’t relate to, because they are so far removed from the God I know. You and I have much of the same data (Scripture), but we interpret and understand it very differently. Some of this, I’m sure, has to do with me being a Catholic. Anyway, of course, I don’t think that you should just blindly try to “re-embrace God” with the way that you currently see Him, because as things are, you think that He either doesn’t exist, or is a horrible tyrant, or both!
What I was trying to ask you to consider is that maybe some of the very things about God and His ways which make no sense to you now may make very good sense, viewed from another perspective which may just be not ridiculous at all.
Here’s one example of an historic Christian teaching that used to seem utterly ridiculous to me but which doesn’t anymore. When I was an atheist teenager, I masturbated quite often and didn’t think that there was anything wrong with it at all. When I first became a Christian, I slowly began to understand and accept that ok, it was probably not the *most* Godly act that I could do, but I still seriously struggled with understanding why it was wrong, and I often tried to justify it to myself in my mind. Now, as a Catholic, I see the Church’s teachings on sexuality as a whole, and they are so much deeper, richer, and more beautiful than the teachings on sexuality that I encountered in the Protestant world, and I understand why the Church teaches that masturbation is a serious sin. It’s not a ridiculous, or hard-to-understand-or-accept, teaching for me anymore, because I have a deeper, better context in which to understand it, than I ever had as a Protestant.
I’m just asking if you are willing to consider that perhaps your fundamentalist Protestant way of reading the Bible might have led to some ways of thinking about God that might not be accurate, in terms of who He really is and how He wants people (including you) to relate to Him. That question may be a non-issue for you now, because you seem sure that the Biblical God doesn’t exist. Maybe He does actually exist though, but some of the ways which you were taught about to think about Him and His ways (in terms of your interpretive framework for reading the Bible) have led you to conclude that He either doesn’t exist or is not worth worshiping. It’s just a thought. (I have been in that place.)
All I can say Kenneth is that if you think eternal torture is a fitting punishment for thought crimes and murder alike, I pray to God that you never ever are in a position to make laws in any country.
Comrade,
Would I be a loving father, if some of my children actually knew and understood me *accurately*, but truly, honestly, just did not like me, and did not want to spend *any* time with me at all, *but* I disregarded their wishes and dragged them into a room to spend eternity with me anyway?
As I wrote earlier to Christian, for me, Heaven is desirable because it is eternity with God. Hell is undesirable (for me) because it is eternity apart from Him. The hardcore fundamentalist view of Hell as a torture chamber which God sends people to, and in which demons are tearing away at their flesh for eternity, may well be the view of many fundamentalist Protestants, but it is far from the *only* (or the *accurate*, I would say, as a Catholic) way to understand the historic Christian teaching on Hell. This is a very short video of a thoughtful Catholic priest’s reflections on Hell, which I’ll leave here, if you, or anyone else, wants to watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4
Christopher,
Would you be a loving father if your kids didn’t want to spend time with you and you told them, “Fine. Be that way. Don’t ever call me or come to me again ever. No matter how bad things get with you or how miserable you are. You’ll never hear from me again.”
No, no you wouldn’t.
No, if you want to argue that God has no agency in casting people into hell, but that hell is a state of mind, okay. That would be a more humane version of hell. I still can’t see God giving up on a person, but okay.
But that’s not what people who refer to God’s ‘justice’ typically mean.
Comrade,
I don’t believe that God “eternally inflicts torture” on those on hell. So there are some differences in our understandings of these things that keep us talking past each other. Which is OK! can’t always agree on everything. Or in our case, can’t ever agree on anything lol
Christipher,
I don’t think this is a great place to have that discussion. Agree to disagree 🙂
The Church since Vatican 2….
http://mobile.wnd.com/2002/12/16195/
Hooray! Hooray!
Comrade,
You’re asking me that question about what I would do as a father, as compared to God, based on what seems, to me, to be a faulty premise. The premise is that people in Hell would eventually get tired of being apart from God and simply change their minds about Him and then truly want to be with Him eternally.
As a Catholic, my understanding is that a person who would actually, truly, say “No” to God and *continue* saying “No” to Him, right up to the point of death, would not suddenly change his/her mind at death, because by that point, much, if not most, of the person’s life will have been spent saying “No” to God. By that point, the person’s heart would logically be so set against the thought of spending eternity *with* God that eternity *apart* from Him would be a *freely, willfully* chosen reality.
God doesn’t give up on us. We can, however, give up on, and turn away from, Him. He continues to pursue us and call out to us. If we continue to say “No” to Him, right up to the point of death, it is *we* who choose to be eternally apart from Him, because that is partially what this life is– preparation for eternity. Every hour, day, week, month, and year, we are becoming, more and more, people who want to be with God eternally, or people who want to be apart from Him eternally. If I shut my mind, heart, and soul off to God until I die, then I will have *made* myself into a person who (I hope that I don’t do this!) simply *does not want* be with Him in eternity. At that point, He will respect what I want and allow me to have it, because He’s a loving Father, not a Divine Rapist.
Kenneth,
You tell me that you don’t think this is the right place to have a discussion about Vatican II, and whether it was/is a good thing or not. Then, you post a snarky comment with a link to a piece by Pat Buchanan about the supposed “decline” of the Church since Vatican II. I’m not going to play those sorts of games here.
For myself, I know how Vatican II looks when it is implemented, *not* according to some media-driven fantasy of “The Spirit of Vatican II,” but rather, according to the actual documents of the Council. The latter happens at my church (a “Novus Ordo” parish which has some Latin and Greek in the Mass), and vocations *are* coming forth.
As for the problems mentioned in Buchanan’s link, they are real, but Vatican II didn’t cause them. If the Church had been in such a wonderful golden age before the Council, then those problems would not have shown themselves so vividly as they did *after* the Council. Historically speaking, Catholic Church Councils have often been followed by periods of tumult in which the problems that were building and festering *before* the Councils actually became worse *after* the Councils. Then, over time, things calmed down.
It has only been 60 years since Vatican II. In 21st-century America, the late 1950s and early ’60s may seem like a *very, very* long time ago, but in the *Catholic* sense of time, that is not very long ago at all! 🙂 Believe me, I know that when one is enduring an heretical homily, or a Mass with terrible liturgical abuse, that even an *hour* can even seem like a long time (I’ve been there), but the true, good, orthodox work of implementing Vatican II is still really just beginning to be done at the local parish level. That is, things are finally beginning to calm down after the Council, but it *was* a good thing, and there’s much good work yet to be done in its implementation! If you still disagree though, I won’t try to convince you otherwise. 🙂
Chrisopher,
Couldn’t help myself. Guilty as charged 🙂
Things calmed down *when* exactly? Under Pope Francis?!? Lol please. Ask Cardinal Burke how that’s working out for him. Ask the Fransiscans too.
This argument doesn’t even make sense… if the Church was previously healthy nothing Vatican 2 did could possibly have hurt the Church? Is that what you are saying?
The Church reformed the schools and the schools closed down. The Church reformed the convents and now the convents close down. The Church reforms education and then our catholic schools close their doors. The Church reforms the seminary and the seminarians go extinct. Religious vocations are at an all time low, in the next 5 years half of what remains of the priesthood will be well over 70 and virtually NO ONE in the pews has any idea what it means to be catholic. But of course none of this has anything to do with the second Vatican Council…. yeah right!
Yes, things have finally really begun to be implemented under Pope Francis….. and that’s the problem. More bad news to come until everyone takes their head out of the ostrich hole and give an honest evaluation of the council. Give it the duck test. You know, if it looks like a duck walks like a duck. If V2 looks like a desaster………..
The truth all you hipsters can’t seem to bare is that liberal wishy washy religion is dead religion. It never survives the next generation. So long as the Catholic Church keeps bending over backwards to play patty cake with the world, masking and shrouding it’s teaching with ecumenical language as best it can, the Church will just continue to empty out.
What the Church really needs to do is another good Inquisition. Of course you can’t really torture folks nowadays, but you can excommunicate them.
I encourage everyone to take a really hard line on theology and practice and start the purity purges until only the truly faithful remain, then the church will surely grow.
Comrade,
Exactly!
Lol, I think Comrade was being sarcastic, but I agree completely!
Kenneth,
Dude, I read that in Clint Eastwood’s voice from “Gran Torino”
Mike,
I was going more for Liam Neison.
No, I was being serious. Kick out the liberals, the moderates, the less conservative conservatives and get down to your really hardcore ultra-conservative Latin mass saying, take the bibles away from the commoners core. Let everyone know that if they’re not going to toe the ultraconservative line, they aren’t welcome in the Church.
And if there’s any quesiton of someone’s thoughts and allegience, better kick them out just to be safe.
Comrade,
You see fear. But what I see Christianity teaching is that you have a purpose; you matter; your choices matter. The story (as Jason likes to say) is meaningless without real consequences to your choices; life is meanless. You will be judged. But the good news is that there is mercy to be had! Accepting the mercy brings you back into God’s family. If you don’t want that, God’s not going to force you. Your choices matter, because you and your life matter.
Lane,
you have a purpose; you matter; your choices matter.
You assume that it’s better to have a purpose, to “matter”. How is that better than not mattering if the majority of people end up suffering for eternity?
Christian,
I don’t know what hell involves. I don’t know how many people go there (1/3 of the angels fell, Rev 12:4, hopefully the odds are better for us). I do know the consequences for our actions will be Just.
Our actions matter. It’s similar to our society. We don’t hold young children as responsible for their actions as adults. However young children aren’t as free within society as adults. If one’s action can have terrible negative consequences, it must also mean conversely that our actions can have equally wonderful positive consequences.
I know that Christianity makes no sense to you. Fine. But for the life of me, I don’t understand how people find it so easy to scoff at a free offer of mercy. It is baffling. The hardness to the idea that one has done something needing forgiveness is so naive and diluted to me that it makes no sense.
The ‘scoffing’ is at the idea that what we have done is worthy of eternal torture and that that sentence would be just and that I would be happy and frolicking about heaven singing praise songs or reciting a liturgy to a God who is actively tormenting people that I care about.
You keep on using the word “torture”. So long as you do that, no one can take you seriously.
So you willing accept the Justice for your actions? Why, because you don’t think it won’t be a big deal? Or do you think all your actions are wonderful without blemish? Scoff all you want at all the particularities of Christianity that you, at the moment, can’t accept; I can’t make someone believe something that they think isn’t true. However, don’t push away the mercy and love offered.
For goodness sake love: goodness, truth, and beauty; love love! Be repentant for your wrongs, and desire mercy. {sarcasm}It sounds awful I know!{/sarcasm}
But you get this push back: “why should I do that – why, because otherwise I will go to hell?”. Sigh…
Okay, how about “Lake of fire, outer darkness, worms eating your flesh that never die, unquenchable fire, smoke of their torment rising forever?” Is that okay?
Every man will be repaid according to his deeds.
Kenneth,
What if unending torment, or eternal suffering is used? To my mind, torture is a perfectly legitimate term. Whether your talking about CS Lewis’ or Jonathan Edwards’ formulation of Hell, no amount of nuance can obscure the horrible nature of such visions. What word would you use? Are you a separationist?
I think the ‘traditional’ view of Hell is a slander on the character of God and as well the son of God. And I hope in a day when God’s ministers learn to see their father’s mercy aright, instead of clouding the creator’s relationship to his creatures with low notions of his justice, and complicated logical tricks of who his children are.
The reconciliation of all things to the altogether lovely one is no new and innovative hipster fad. I’m sure you cringe at the lazy caricatures a la many an atheist speaking about your savior. This hope of the gospel goes back further in time than any hipster would think to revive by fashion.
Jeremiah,
I have no doubts that hell is an aweful place. Comrade was kind enough to give a brief summary of the analagous language used to describe it. There are two methods being used here in arriving at our understanding of the afterlife.
Group 1 arrives at their conception of hell from the teachings of Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the authoritative teachings of the Church
Group 2 arrives at their conception by first determining what is tasteful and then making scripture fit with whatever they have come up with.
I am proud to be in group 1! There are just a couple of teachings on hell we must all hold
1. Hell is forever
2. Hell is a terrible place
3. Hell is for those who do not die in Christ
4. There is no injustice with God
How one holds those together is optional. The person in group 2 downplays or alters 1-3. He says hell is actually not forever or really not so bad. Some others will admit one and two but insist that no one belongs in category three. The main point is that these conclusions are not drawn from honest study of divine revelation, but from their own imagination. These people do not care what scripture teaches. They have already made up their own minds what God should be allowed to do with the soul of the reprobate.
I prefer to hold all 4 points in tension. I understand that 1-3 appear to conflict with 4… but I insist that when we have all the relevant information we will see that it does not. We may lack understanding on what “forever and ever” really means outside of space time. We might not understand that hell is less like God inflicting torture and more like sinners damaging thenselves. We just don’t have any idea what the consequences SHOULD be for one who sins against an infinitely holy God. We will find out later. While we are waiting, I choose to arrive at my theological conclusions by studying God’s word…. and not the word of some atheistic philosopher
Or he says that early Christians formerly belonged to a more apocalyptic sect of Judaism and interpreted the idea of God’s justice in a more apocalyptic way, where there was a grand cosmic conflict that would ultimately end with the death and retributive torment of the losing side.
This was comforting to latter Christians experiencing persecution by Jewish and Roman communities who were losing wealth, safety, family and their lives. Their sacrifice would be rewarded they were assured, while their enemies who hurt them would be punished if they did not repent of their wicked deeds.
Add in a few thousand years of Christian thought and writing, including Dante’s popularization of hell as a giant medieval torture chamber. And we have God now as the medieval Lord sitting over a tribunal against the rebels of his kingdom and their supporters pronouncing retributive torture forever for opposing Him.
Comrade,
Which is just a long way of denying 1 through 3 🙂
Kenneth,
If hell will be unending as you say it must be, then how would sin be said to have an end put to it? Would justice, as you call it, ever be achieved if a sinner’s ‘just punishment’ never ceases? God would be infinitely foiled in his endeavor to rid his creation of sin. I don’t believe in such a weak creator, and I’m sure you don’t either.
You say your choice is to arrive at your conclusions by studying God’s word, and though the Christian scriptures say it is God who casts them into the lake of fire you’re prepared to countenance the possibility that hell may be sinners damaging themselves?
Speaking of atheistic philosophers, maybe Stephen Law’s Evil God Challenge doesn’t miss the mark after all if words can change their meanings between here and judgement day. No, I think we can trust in a perfect savior, and with him, his perfect father.
Doesn’t he teach us to love our enemies, to do good to those who curse us and spitefully use us? Will God not do the same? He will make an end of sin by making it end in us, and if hell be needful for that end, then he will continue that labor of love until all things are made new.
…Then of course, Hell will look much different than many have been taught to imagine it.
Jeremiah,
Hell will be never ending because scripture says it will be. If one gets a life sentence for murder “justice” has been served because the punishment matches the crime. All those in hell will be in torment forever because that is what their sins demand. How does that make sense? I don’t know. I could throw out some hypotheticals, but I would ultimately just be speculating. Sin will have been defeated and the elect will no longer be in danger of falling into the snares of the evil one. Good Will have triumphed over evil. That’s a pretty powerful creator if you ask me 🙂
They could be keeping themselves in hell by continually sinning and cursing God’s name. They could be suffering because the very love of God burns them like fire. There are all kinds of speculative answers. If even one of them is possible, there is no logical contradiction between God’s love and hell neverending.
The elect certainly can.
Why dies he say we should be kind and do good to those who spite us? Because vengeance is the Lords. That’s why. All things will be made new and all things work for good for the elect…. not for every single being ever created.
Assuming Satan does exist and not a gradual evolution of a character from an avenging angel to a fallen angel described in Revelation like the old chaos gods, I wouldn’t count the damnation of billions of people as a triumph of good over evil. Satan will have successfully thwarted God’s will that all men be saved.
God only anticidently wills that all men be saved. His consequent will only holds that the elect will be saved.
Just to get you up on the catholic lingo…. Say Joe smith goes before a judge. Before considering any surrounding facts, the judge may anticidently will Joe live a free, happy, and productive life. However, after consideration of the evidence that Joe is a serial killer and rapist, the judge may consequently will that Joe be put in prison for life. In the same way God anticidently wills that all men be saved. However, after consideration of our sin, he consequently wills only the elect be saved.
Kenneth,
You said,”…Why dies he say we should be kind and do good to those who spite us? Because vengeance is the Lords. That’s why…”
No that was not the reason, the reason Jesus gave was that we “may be children of the highest, for he is kind unto the unthankful and the evil.”
I’m sure this can run and run, but I imagine it will come up again. 🙂
Oh snap!
Touche. I had Romans 12:19 in mind
I would be more than happy to have a strictly scriptural conversation on what Jesus taught would happen to the wicked 🙂
If it was God’s will that all would be saved, then all would be saved.
So, God’s attitude is: “You know… I’d really like to save you all… really I would… but you know… meh… no big deal one way or the other really.” 😉
His general demeanor is one of love and mercy. Yet, considering the big picture, He passes over some and saves others
Sounding more and more like a Calvinist, Kenneth. Be careful, lest you be caught up in the purity purges you were advocating upthread. lol.
I have a lot in common with calvinism. Classical catholic thought is strong on predestination. Aquinas, Augustine, Bellarmine, Suarez, etc. Many if our greatest doctors and saints fall in this category. I’m in good company 🙂
Reading some of the comments posted here is exhausting. Some of you commenting need to have a drink and chill the fuck out. Great podcast DXP’s. Christian, I love you laugh!!!
Yeah, we’re never going to see eye to eye.
Any God who would create billions of sentient lifeforms capable of feeling pain with the express purpose of predestining them to a place of unending pain (so those few He predestined to save can appreciate how awesome they have it) is even more monstrous than the God I grew up who at least offered salvation to everyone via magic prayer and not using your naughty bits inappropriately.
Lol! Some forms of Calvinism teach that God created some for the express purpose of damn in them. The catholic version condemns that as a heresy. God offers salvation to all and everyone is given the grace necessary for salvation. Christ really did die for the sins of the entire world. Sadly, man rejects this grace. God permits them to resist but does not predestine them to resist. The only ones who are predestined in the positive sense are those who are predestined for glory. Those chosen before the foundation of the world. God loves everyone enough to die for them, but loves some more than others.
Comrade,
Yes I agree. This is exactly where Calvinism becomes a heresy. That and ascribing the creation of evil and sin directly to God.
From the Catechism:
Comradedread –
I read the Bible fairly closely, and don’t see any Scrip anywhere teaching that God created billions of humans. He claims to have a hand in the creation only of: (1) angels, (2) Adam & Eve, (3) Jesus Christ, and (4) regenerate men. These are defined bibilically as “sons of God.”
Humans are a direct creation of Mom and Dad. They are sons of their father and they are created in the image of their own father.
And so it is, by glib logical tricks of what a child is, or how that child may one day simply choose to forsake his father and so be forsaken. Nonsense. Follow the christian scribes and lawyers in there complicated webs if you will, but stop imagining your representations are worthy of the God of men. Please take more care, and consider again, it is the goodness of God which leads us to repentence. How can you believe you inherited original sin from Adam and all that entails, but nothing of the one who made him? For in him we live, and move, and have our being.
Yeah, I got a little excited there—apologies. 🙂
But really, guys it baffles me that we except these precise details somehow mean God is not interested in every human heart, and then just sluffs his shoulders and says, ” well, (sigh) I tried.” Really? No, I don’t buy it.
Jeremiah,
All of the elect will be saved. It is certain. God does not “try” and fail.
Kenneth,
The more that I read your comments, it really sounds as though you are trying to *harmonize* Calvinism and Catholicism, with Catholicism getting the short end of the stick. The fact is, the Church just does *not* officially teach that God loves some people more than others. I’m not meaning to go off on a lecture here on how to best articulate Catholicism *myself*, but it’s just too much for me to see hardcore-Calvinist-type thinking portrayed as Catholicism here. The Church teaches that God truly does desire *all* people to be saved, and that He takes *no* pleasure in the deaths of the wicked.
To be sure, Saints Augustine and Aquinas *do* have a stronger emphasis on predestination in their thinking than some other Catholic thinkers, such as Molinas, but they are not proto-Calvinists. Historically, the Church’s teaching ended up stepping back from some of the more extreme statements of Augustine (and, though my Thomist friends won’t like me for this, I would say, Aquinas too) on election and predestination. They are still Saints, of course, and much of their thinking is still held in the Church today, but it is simply *not* one of the Church’s official teachings that God loves some people more than others. You sound like you are trying to harmonize Catholicism with Jonathan Edwards’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” and that is just not where the Catholic Church stands.
On your reply to me above on Vatican II, again, I have seen parishes where the Council is being implemented *according to the documents of the Council,” as opposed to some peoples’ misguided fantasy of the “Spirit of the Council” (which, for some reason, often seems to include rejection of the Church’s rubrics for the Mass, and some of her other teachings, such as Holy Orders only being given to men, even though Christ Himself only ordained men). In parishes where Vatican II is truly being implemented, the Mass is reverent, the Church’s teachings are taught, and vocations to the priesthood and religious life *are* happening. I see these things in my parish and others in the Maryland/DC area, and I hear about them from other faithful Catholics, who also think Vatican II was/is a good thing, around the U.S.
On your seeming dislike of Pope Francis, it’s unfortunate that you can’t see how good this Holy Father is for the Church and for the world. Because of his radical (not leftist-radical but just Christ-like) witness, many people are now listening to the Church who used to dismiss her. I say that as a Catholic who loves both Saint John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI who are sometimes pitted (inaccurately) in American media against Francis.
Anyone who carefully reads the writings and speeches of Benedict XVI and Francis will find deep commonalities there on the importance of a radical witness to the Gospel, helping the poor, caring for the environment, and many other subjects. (Pope Benedict XVI was nicknamed “The Green Pope” for his strong teaching on environmental issues. Too many people completely overlooked this aspect of his rich, deep Papacy.)
Ok Comrade, I’ll bite. Do you think that demonstrates God actually doesn’t care for every human heart?
Christopher,
Great comment. I don’t actually think Kenneth is really trying harmonize Calvinism with Catholicism (I’m familiar with him arguing with Calvinists else where).
I really appreciate Vatican 2 teachings. They were/are definitely abused by some. In fact, you can probably make a case that all of the councils have been abused by one group or another. However, I don’t think I could have made the jump to Catholicism without Vatican 2 teachings. I actually thought about making Pope Saint John XXIII (who began V2) my confirmation saint; especially since unity was my main motivator for looking at Catholicism in the first place. I ended up picking Saint Augustine for other reasons.
As being an ex-Calvinist myself, I am most comfortable with Thomism theology. Mainly because I haven’t, as of yet, looked into all the available orthodox theologies Catholicism has to offer (Molinism, Congruism…).
I am a weak theist (or weak agnostic depending upon the day, I suppose.) I do think if God exists, He is not a monster and He is not unjust. I think if God is described as a father, than He is a better father than I am. When I punish my kids, it’s not to cause pain, it’s not because I get off on torture. It’s to bring about correction and restoration. So I am a universalist.
In reference to the verse I cited, Dave said that God never claims to be the creator of billions of people. And this verse at least demonstrates that his statement is incorrect. God does supposedly claim here that He is the creator of all of mankind, not simply a small subset of Christians.
And I think if God exists, He will care more about how much I loved other people through my words and my actions than He will care about how correct my theology was.
Which is to also say that I am a universalist when it comes to justice too.
I don’t think saying a magic prayer absolves you of facing up to the actions and words we’ve used to hurt each other. I think we will all have to face our misdeeds and face the pain we caused other people. And I think with that perfect knowledge of what our deeds do and what our words can do, we will finally see sin and selfishness for what they are and reject them forever.
Kenneth,
“…God does not try and fail.”
Agreed. That is why I hope in the living God, who is the savior of all men, specially of those that believe. And I also trust it is not a hard thing for the almighty that the same all things in heaven and on earth which he created by his Son. And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile the same all things unto himself.
Comrade,
Right on man. Thanks for the clarification.
Jeremiah,
Did you come to believe in universalism through study of divine revelation? Or did you first predetermine in your mind that hell was inexcusable and then go and make your theology work?
Christopher,
There is precious little *official* teaching on predestination by the Church. However, my statements are completely in line with our greatest doctors and theologians. Augustine, Aquinas, Gregory the Great, Albert the Great, Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Legrange etc. Predestination before consideration of merits or demerits was also at one time the official position of the jesuits and all followers of molina. Although the idea that God loves some more than other may not be *official* teaching, it is good theology. Challenge:
Is it true that Gods love is the source of all goodness? If so, it follows that nothing could be bettter than any other, without first being loved more by God. Is it better for a man to fulfill his final end (of knowing and loving God) or to fail in that end? If you say that it is better, it follows that no one could fulfill that end more than any other without first being loved more by God.
The idea that the documents of vatican 2 are these pristine proponents of orthodoxy is just as much a fantasy as those who promote the “spirit of vatican 2”.The truth is that the council fathers themselves have admitted to numerous “compromise formulas” being placed throughout the texts so as to please both liberal and conservative theologians. The documents are vague, unclear, and confusing. Especially when read next to other documents of the magesterium. Challenge:
If i were to live my life as if the Second Vatican Council never happened would I be able to? Full stop. If i didnt want to attend a novus ordo, didnt want to read the documents, didnt care to be “ecumenical” (whatever that means) and just kept on living the faith of all the Catholics for 2000 years before could I do so? If not, please explain. If yes, then you will agree that it makes no sense to go and read unclear “compromised” documents when we have crystal clear teaching already in place.
Lane,
So then if i said to you “I am a big proponent of “hoping” that man can be saved apart from Gods grace. I am not actually saying one can do that sure sure, just saying I think we should hope so” Would you accept that as healthy Catholic thought?
Kenneth,
Your disdain and dismissive attitude towards an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church is worrying.
Lane,
Cardinal Ratzinger affirms the same saying that ” Not all valid councils, after being tested by the facts of history, have shown themselves to be useful councils; in the final analysis, all that was left of some was a great nothing.”
If you disagree please meet my V2 challenge that I layer out to christopher
Kenneth,
No one is saying that people are saved apart form God’s Grace (or the merits of Jesus’ sacrifice), just that I’m not privy to who has/will receive that Grace. God will have mercy on who He has Mercy. I am bound by God’s sacraments and commands. However, God is not.
Taking the fact that I think I’m elect, and using it as a license to sin, is not good thought. Likewise, taking the fact that I think that most people will be saved, and using it as a license to not evangelize, is also not good thought. However, being comforted by the thought of God’s mercy possibly being applied to wide swaths of apparently damned groups of people (non Christians), IS, I think, good thinking. That hope shouldn’t be used as an excuse for acedia, spiritual laziness; but comfort for things outside one’s control.
Jeremiah and Comrade,
If you aren’t familiar with Hans Urs von Balthasar, check out the forward (and the videos) written for one of his books by Fr. Robert Barron (a very popular and orthodox Catholic educator):
http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/remembering-hans-urs-von-balthasars-important-book/4620/
I think you will find him interesting. He is quite controversial; people within the Catholic church both love him and hate him. I don’t know enough about him to be in either group yet, but I do find him interesting.
Lane,
I understand that no one is affirming that we can be saved apart from grace. Let me try to explain my thoughts again and see if I can communicate them more clearly.
Universalism is a condemned heresy. Pelagianism is also a condemned heresy. When someone says
“I am not affirming that we can do good without God’s grace, am only saying that we can reasonably HOPE that man can be good without God’s grace”
Everyone would recognize that as unhealthy thinking. Why? Because you are flirting with heresy, and in essence promoting it, all while never actually affirming said heresy to be true. Yet, when Balthazar, Fr. Barron, Jason, and others do essentially the same thing with universalism everyone gives a round of applause. If one is unhealthy so is the other. If you have no problem with a person saying
“Oh, I’m not affirming for sure that all people go to heaven. I only say that it is reasonable to hope so”
Then you should also have no problem with someone else saying
“Oh, I’m not affirming for sure that we are saved by faith alone. I only say that it is reasonable to hope so”
Just substitute one heresy for the other. See what I’m saying?
Kenneth,
“Would I be Catholic?” is the question I would be asking. I have a hard time seeing myself able to make the jump to Catholicism without some of the ecumenical language and efforts derived from V2.
You use to be Protestant. What made you make the jump, if I may ask? Have you always gone to Latin masses, or is it just something you prefer?
Kenneth,
Just substitute one heresy for the other. See what I’m saying?
I think I do. I will keep the warning in mind.
Lane,
I don’t attend latin mass now. My wife will ONLY attend this particular church that she fell in love with…. I crossed the Tiber before she did so I’m just grateful we get to go together anywhere! Truthfully I converted by reading the bible. Sounds lame I know, but it’s true. I was on John MacArthurs bible study plan which is ironic. The book of 1 John sent me down the path to Rome. It’s been pretty horrible. I have no catholic friends that are orthodox and all my closest friends and family think I’m lost lol my wife only just got on board recently which is nice. Once I came into the Church I noticed some discrepancies in belief between some of the apologists that helped me convert. I read the arguments from both sides and have decided with the trads. I think they are right and I think Vatican 2 is an enormous blunder. That’s just my opinion though and I respect anyone who holds the opposing view. I’ve gone round and round with Tim Staples on this and I understand that a good case can be made in defense of the council.
If you are willing to go down the rabbit hole…. read here
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm
Kenneth,
I know exactly how you feel! I just converted this Easter. My wife did not join me. If she were to convert, I would go anywhere she wants to go! My parish is traditional, and I have access to Latin mass if I choice to go. He It is beautiful. However, because I go to 2 churches, for logistics I usually go to a low mass (no singing, no music) on Saturday evenings.
The pastor, who runs the Latin mass, is very balanced when it comes to traditional catholic divide. If the church thinks it is orthodox and allowable, it is. He comes down hard on the Latin only folks, as well as the people who that think the Latin mass is weird. They are both legit masses, and both should be respected – especially the Latin one.
lol! Hilarious!
I will take a look. I’m not scared of rabbit holes.
Kenneth,
Come on brother, I’m certainly don’t quote scripture to mock it. 🙂 No man it was upon seeing that God’s intention for his creation was complete restoration—which came by an intertwining of being soaked in the scriptures and as well my own walk and formation with my father—that I determined the view of hell many think themselves bound to defend as massively mistaken.
How about yourself, have you predetermined hell, as say…a fire that consumes all that is not of pure will in a human heart, not of their father…to be inexcusable by a knee jerk reaction to a system unlike the one you’ve been taught? Or is it that such curative correction is inconsistent with your heavenly father?
Are you few that comment relentlessly closet homosexuals? Seriously? Do you have a life? Do you work? Who the hell has this much time to debate theology at all times of the day? BTW Christian I meant to say I love your laugh. Jason is funny, but your laugh is medicine. Leaving this conversation now, because I have life to live and wine to drink.
The Postal Wino,
Now that that is out of your system, do feel more superior now?
You called me a closet homosexual and then called another man’s laugh your “medicine”…. because that’s not gay! Bwahaha
Hey, laughter is the best medicine! Thank you, wino!
Also, Kenneth, you’re assuming The Postal Wino is a guy. Girls know how to use a computer too, you troglodyte!
Postal Wino, I agree on the laughing and the wine. Enjoying your well placed and finely timed comment!
Postal wino is a gay man until proven otherwise.
Jeremiah,
How does a universalist interpret this chapter of John
I have made Your name known to the people You have given Me from the world. They were Yours but You gave them to Me. They have obeyed Your Word. 7 Now they know that everything You have given Me came from You. 8 I gave them the Word which You gave Me. They received it. They know I came from You and they believe You sent Me.
9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world. I pray for those You gave Me. They are Yours. 10 All that is Mine is Yours. All that is Yours is Mine. I have been honored through them. 11 I am no longer in the world. I am coming to You. But these are still in the world. Holy Father, keep those You have given to Me in the power of Your name. Then they will be one, even as We are One. 12 While I have been with them in the world, I have kept them in the power of Your name. I have kept watch over those You gave Me. Not one of them has been lost except the one who is going to be destroyed….13 But now I come to You, Father. I say these things while I am in the world. In this way, My followers may have My joy in their hearts.
14 “I have given Your Word to My followers. The world hated them because they do not belong to the world, even as I do not belong to the world. 15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world. I ask You to keep them from the devil. 16 My followers do not belong to the world just as I do not belong to the world. 17 Make them holy for Yourself by the truth. Your Word is truth.
18 “As You sent Me into the world so I have sent them into the world also. 19 I set Myself apart to be holy for them. Then they may be made holy by the truth.
Jesus Prays for All Christians
20 “I do not pray for these followers only. I pray for those who will put their trust in Me through the teaching they have heard.21 May they all be as one, Father, as You are in Me and I am in You. May they belong to Us. Then the world will believe that You sent Me. 22 I gave them the honor You gave Me that they may be one as We are One. 23 I am in them and You are in Me so they may be one and be made perfect. Then the world may know that You sent Me and that You love them as You love Me.
24 “Father, I want My followers You gave Me to be with Me where I am. Then they may see My shining-greatness which You gave Me because You loved Me before the world was made. 25 Holy Father, the world has not known You. I have known You. These have known You sent Me. 26 I have made Your name known to them and will make it known. So then the love You have for Me may be in them and I may be in them.”
Why does Jesus repeat himself so much??
God is hard of hearing. It’s like talking to a grandpa. How many more prayers would have been answered if only everyone would repeat themselves to be clear?
This whole passage, are you kidding? Sorry bro, not happening. Except one quick observation. (My little daughter is dancing to Jezebel, …wait, wait like the dawn, how it aches to meet the day. Life is good.)
Do you see the progression of his prayer? He says he does not pray for the world, but for his followers. Then he prays not for his followers only but also for those who will believe in him from their efforts. The elect come from the world. His prayer is specifically for those that love him and will love him…
Now, your turn, how you interpret the letter to the Romans? 🙂
peace to you all.
Lane and Kenneth,
Thanks for your replies to me (which are far up above in the comments now, as there are so many here! I can’t keep up! First world problems!). 🙂 Alas, I saw your comments too late today to have time to reply to them *well*, and I don’t want to just dash something off to both of you, *and* tomorrow is going to be very busy for me, so I’ll probably reply either tomorrow night, or sometime on Wednesday. Thanks for your patience.
I mean, tomorrow night, or sometime on *Thursday*! Too much to do right now, and my concentration and proofreading are suffering! 🙂
You mean Romans 9? Lol I definitely don’t think you want to go there. My point is that there are many many passages of scripture that speak of the elect or those who were chosen. People from every tribe and tongue SET APART before the beginning of the world. Set apart from what? From whom? Doesn’t the word “chosen” imply there are others who are “not chosen”.
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”
What does this imply about the ones who did not believe? It’s rather obvious that the ones who did not believe we’re not “appointed”. Appointed to what? Eternal life. Universalism isn’t false because it’s a bad idea. It’s false because it makes absolutely no sense of the Christian story.
That section of John made me not Protestant.
One Church one faith
There was never one church and one faith, except in the general sense of all followers of Christ being part of a universal church.
There is still only one Church and one faith 🙂
Jeremiah,
Bitchinest comment EVER.
PS – “Lay here, my love, you’re the only shape I pray to….”
To quote the great theologian Homer Simpson, “He’s way the hell up there!” (points at the sky)
He probably misses a lot of things you say unless you say them often and very loudly. 😉
Comrade,
Just checking in here *very* briefly today– gotta go soon. You wrote, “There was never one church and one faith, except in the general sense of all followers of Christ being part of a universal church.”
That’s interesting, because in 189 A.D., St. Irenaeus wrote very clearly about one Church and one Faith, and it wasn’t the radically Protestant concept of these things that you have. Funny, that! 🙂
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).
Source: http://www.churchfathers.org/category/the-church-and-the-papacy/apostolic-succession/
And before that, you had Paul’s negative comments about Christians who believed that one must be circumcised and follow the law to be a Christian. You had the Marcionites. The proto-gnostics that the writer of 1st John railed against. Origen and the Alexandrians (being universalists and all). The Ebionites. Arias and his followers. I could go on.
Even the bible shows a marked difference between James and Paul on some areas of thought.
Since a group of women showed up at an empty tomb, there have been different people trying to figure out what exactly Jesus of Nazareth meant to us and what we are supposed to do with His life.
Comrade,
Your reply, which points to early disagreements among Christians (and some heretics, such as the proto-gnostics) is ironic, because St. Irenaeus is writing *exactly* about how, in the 1st century and in *any* time, one many know what is actually apostolic Christian teaching and what is not. He points to apostolic succession, to the order of bishops, and to the handing down of apostolic teachings by the bishops, and, particularly, by the bishop of Rome, where we find the church to which Irenaeus claims every church in the world must submit.
He isn’t simply giving his *opinion* here; he’s describing what Christianity actually looked like, and how it was ecclesiastically governed, already, in 189 A.D. From your thinking, the fact that people disagreed, even early on, over what is Christian teaching, and what is not, is a sign that there is no legitimate ecclesiastical authority which can settle the matter, and that we have to hash it out among ourselves, as we each interpret the Bible to the best of our understandings and abilities.
However, this way of thinking is decidedly not that of the early Church, as can be seen by the passages from St. Irenaeus and from many other early Church Fathers. Disagreements among Christians, and objections to Christian teaching by heretics, does not mean that God has left us to ourselves to determine what orthodox Christianity is and what it isn’t.
A case in point: Origen. The Catholic Church condemned his holding of unqualified universalism as a supposed positive fact of the Catholic faith. He is still considered to be an important and valuable teacher in the Church on many subjects. Pope Benedict XVI commended the study of Origen. However, his universalism is one of the main reasons (it may well be *the* main reason) that he is not a Doctor of the Church or a canonized Saint. This is not an example of the Church clamping down on a man in a power play. It is simply the Church doing what St. Irenaeus described in 198 A.D.– defining orthodox Christian doctrine–, something that the Church still does today, thanks be to God.
Kenneth,
You state that, while the idea that God loves some people more than others is not official Catholic doctrine, it is, according to you, “good theology.”
The Bible declares that God *is* love. This statement seems to, at the very least, strongly imply that love is His defining characteristic, the attribute by which all of His other attributes are guided. He exercises His sovereignty in the context of His love. Sometimes, from your comments, it seems that you think the truth is the reverse: God is *sovereignty*, and love is a secondary matter.
Do you feel free to say to any person– any person at all– that God loves him/her and wants him/her to be saved? Scripture says that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. By contrast, your theology seems to say that, yes, God loves the world, but not everyone in the world equally, because He loves some people enough to actively predestine them to Heaven, while He loves others somewhat, but apparently not enough to keep Him from passing over them and letting them go to Hell. If that is the case, Kenneth, then why does Scripture even *say* that God so loved the world? Why are we told that God is love, if He loves some people so little that He won’t even give them the grace to even *potentially* respond positively to Him?
Your reading of Romans 9 is not the exegetically *necessary* one, even though it may seem so to you. There are other sound Catholic ways of understanding that chapter that don’t take your Calvinistic path. I have tried, numerous times here, to post a link to a very thorough Catholic exegetical examination of Romans 9 that defends God’s sovereignty without moving toward Calvinistic thinking. For some reason, every time that I try to post the link, my comment won’t go through, even though the blog is simply a traditional Catholic blog. Anyway, look up the “Catholic Nick” blog, and the post therein titled, “Does Romans 9 Condemn Unconditional Election as Heresy?” That post helped to decisively change my Calvinistic (even after I returned to the Catholic Church!) interpretation of Romans 9 (and 10 and 11).
On the documents of Vatican 2, it’s certainly possible for you to be a Catholic while not paying much attention to them. Many poor and illiterate Catholics around the world have never read them, because they are poor and illiterate and have to work 20-hour days and don’t have the leisure time to read documents of the Church.
However, logically speaking, why would any faithful Catholic want to live his/her life as if Vatican II never existed, when now-Saint John Paul II thought it a matter of great importance to spend so much time during his Papacy on defending and promoting the accurate Catholic interpretation of the Council *and* constantly drawing upon its documents in his encyclicals, books, and speeches? Pope Benedict XVI did the same. Both men were actually at the Council. One of them is now a Saint of the Church.
Do you honestly think that you understand the documents of Vatican II better than John Paul II and Benedict XVI? They both spoke of the Council as a great gift to the Church, rightly interpreted. The matter of this “right interpretation,” in the Church, finally belongs to the Popes and the bishops teaching in accordance with them, *not* to us as lay Catholics.
If Catholics accept that the Magisterium can authoritatively interpret Sacred Scripture, but we arrogate to ourselves the authoritative interpretation of Sacred Tradition (such as Church Councils), are we not still being semi-Protestants?
“God so loved the world” is a rebuke to Nicodemus’ error, that he was somehow favored due to his blood line or education. Jesus’ statement lets Nick know that other nations, cultures, races were to be included in his salvific work, not only Jews . It is not a statement indicating that God came for every individual. That notion is false, as it contradicts so many statements found in the Scrip. John 3:16 is perhaps the most abused text in evangelical Christianity today.
Lane,
As you have, I’ve seen Kenneth’s comments, and have interacted with him, in places other than DXP. You and I may have to agree to disagree on whether or not he is trying to harmonize Catholicism with Calvinism. I see him as doing just that, and I will explain why that is my perception.
Kenneth is so emphatic to say that God loves some people more than others, and that He predestines some to Heaven while “passing over” others, that it seems to me, as I just wrote above in my reply to Kenneth, he thinks that God’s primary, defining attribute is *sovereignty rather than love*. Scripture states that God *is* love, while Kenneth says that God loves some people more than others, and He loves these “others” so little that He won’t even give them the grace to *potentially* respond positively to Him and go to Heaven.
I know that there are *certain statements* that one can find in the writings of Saints Augustine and Aquinas that sound quite “Calvinistic,” but those statements are not official Catholic doctrine. The Catechism strongly defends the idea that God loves *all* people and wants *all* people to be saved, while still respecting their final choice to say “Yes” or “No” to Him.
When I first returned to the Catholic Church, I gravitated toward strongly election-and-predestination-centered Thomist thought, because I, too, was an ex-Calvinist, and much of Calvinism still seemed to reflect Scriptural teaching to me. I accepted that the Church had condemned flat-out, 100% Calvinism, so to speak, as a heresy, but I still agreed with the non-openly-heretical aspects of Calvinism (in that I thought they reflected Biblical teaching), so I still held onto them as a Catholic.
As time has passed, I have looked deeper into Catholic exegesis of the passages of Scripture that are taken by some people to be “slam-dunks,” or at least, very strong arguments, for Calvinistic thinking on predestination and election. The more that I read of Catholic exegesis of chapters such as Romans 9, the less I agree– and/or feel the *need* to agree– with my former Calvinistic thinking. Check out the “Catholic Nick” blog post that I recommended to Kenneth, and see way what you think: “Does Romans 9 Condemn Unconditional Election as Heresy”? I would post the link here, but I’ve tried to do that numerous times before here, in other comments, and the comments haven’t gone through for some strange reason.
I am very thankful for Vatican II, especially as the documents have been authoritatively interpreted by the Popes since the Council. Kenneth wonders what, if anything, is good about the documents of Vatican II. I’ll give it a go. 🙂
They have *deepened* the Church’s historic teachings but haven’t contradicted them. They have applied those teachings to the modern (and “postmodern”) world. They have helped the Church to grapple with the fact that many, many more people in the world than were once thought simply haven’t heard of Christ and His Gospel. It took me time to learn this (by reading the actual documents of Vatican II) but contrary to the opinions of some, Vatican II doesn’t preach indifferentism or universalism. It calls us to be missionary Christians, while holding out the *possibility* that some people are *open* to God without having explicitly been *told* about Him as revealed in Jesus Christ.
The idea that that it is *possible* for non-Christians who, through no fault of their own, don’t know Christ and His Gospel to be saved is an idea that is clearly articulated in Vatican II, and it’s an idea that logically flows from the fact that God is love. Some Catholics have taken that idea far too far and have given up on evangelism altogether, but that’s not the fault of Vatican II’s teaching. It’s a *distortion* of that teaching. Saint John Paul II makes that point strongly in his great encyclical, “Redemptoris Missio,” which every Catholic who *can* read should read, partially to see that the Church still cares deeply about taking the Gospel to non-Christians, both around the corner and across the world!
Dave,
I’m a Catholic, and the Church has condemned the “limited atonement” of Calvinism as a heresy. However, I’m also a former five-point Calvinist. I used to believe your apparent interpretation of John 3:16 as applying to all of the world’s “elect,” rather than to all of the world– largely because, in order to hold to limited atonement, I logically *had* to believe such an interpretation.
However, Scripture says that God desires *all* people to be saved, not “all kinds of people,” and it says many other things which are very, very hard to “harmonize” with the concept of limited atonement. One has to begin to say things such as “Well, God *does* desire that all people be saved, but His greater desire is to show His love and mercy by electing and predestining some, and to show His power and justice by passing over others, which they. and we, deserve anyway, because we’re all sinners.”
It seems much more Scripturally coherent to me to simply affirm that God truly does desire all people to be saved. Full stop. This doesn’t have to mean universalism, because, due to the fact that we can choose, even God’s desires aren’t always fulfilled in this world. Perhaps He could have made us robots who only choose to follow Him and do good, but then, that good wouldn’t be truly *good*, because it wouldn’t be freely chosen, and God wants freely loving disciples, not “good” robots.
Chris, I don’t buy the “robot” argument. We are all born slaves of sin, love our sin, and proceed according to our own nature/desires. Only the Holy Spirit/regeneration overcomes this blindness/inability. Nor do I believe that God wants all individuals saved. If he did, all would be saved. Human free will is a man-centered myth, not to be found anywhere around the doctrine of salvation of men’s souls. God’s purpose in creation is to glorify all of his attributes, including justice, wrath. Hell is real, and apart from his divine interruption, it is the destiny of all humans.
Christopher,
Thank you for the response! I noticed that you sort of side stepped my initial challenge on Gods love being the source of all goodness in the world. It is a challenge known to Thomists as the doctrine of predilection. I would love to hear you respond to said challenge because it is central to our beliefs in regaurds to predestination and election.
Divine simplicity is a de fide dogma of the Catholic Church and I accept this teaching as a matter of faith. Divine simplicity is the doctrine that God is unchanging, and has no “parts”. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the “attributes” of God. In other words, such characteristics as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc. are identical to God’s being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance. Gods love is identical to His other attributes with none being “primary” or “secondary”. It is certainly not true that God has a “defining characteristic by which His other attributes are guided”. This is not just my opinion, but is the de fide teaching of the Church.
There are some misunderstandings here. Of course I believe that Christ died for the entire world. The atonement is offered to all and whosoever shall believe. Further, the Thomistic understanding is that the reprobate do have the grace necessary to potentially respond and be saved. This is called “sufficient grace” which is offered to the entire world. None of this is incompatible with the Thomistic understanding of election and reprobation. God loves the entire world enough to die for all, yet loves some more than others. It is this group who make up the elect or those whom God positively predestines to glory. The others are not predestined to hell, but are passed over and given sufficient grace to be saved. A grace which they reject. This is perfectly compatible with the teachings of the Church, Tradition, and Sacred Scripture.
My interpretation is not “Calvinistic”. It is very much a Catholic interpretation. I have read Nicks post and responded to him in the comments section of that very blog. In my comments, I reminded Nick that the ONLY interpretation of Romans 9 that the Church has ever given is the very one that he argues against. The Council of Valence authentically teaches that Romans 9 is about individual predestination and election After citing both Romans 9:21 (about the potter’s power over the clay) and Romans 9:22 (about the vessels of mercy and wrath), the council offers its interpretation of those verses:
“Faithfully we confess the predestination of the elect to life, and the predestination of the impious to death; in the election, moreover, of those who are to be saved, the mercy of God precedes merited good. In the condemnation, however, of those who are to be lost, the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment of God.”
The Church has never retracted this interpretation nor has it offered any other interpretation in any council since that time! So sure, it may not be a “necessary” interpretation, but it is the best one and it is in fact the only one the Church has ever taught.
Dave,
Again, I used to be a five-point-Calvinist. I used to believe *exactly* what you are writing here in your comments, because I thought those ideas reflected Scriptural teaching. After much more study of both Scripture and Church history (such as the Biblical exegesis of the early Church Fathers), I eventually reached different conclusions.
Please, simply for the sake of not wasting your or my time, don’t spend your time here preaching to me the ideas which I myself used to strongly believe but have come to reject. It will do neither you nor me any good.
Kenneth,
Thanks for your reply. I just don’t know how you have so much *time* to reply to me and to everyone else here with whom you interact! 🙂 I’m not married and have no children, and I don’t have the time to comment as much as you do!
On that note, I’ll have to get back to you, on your reply, in a day or two. I will get back to you though. 🙂
Christopher,
Yes and both of their papacies were disastrous. The numbers don’t lie. The Second Vatican Council took perfectly clear dogmatic teaching and used “compromise formulas” to make these already defined teachings more vague for liberal theologians to hijack and twist at a later date. Some of these liberal theologians (pushing heretical position in the name of the council) were promoted to very prestigious positions within the Church under the very reign of Saint Pope John Pope II! You’ve heard of Walter Kasper I’m sure? He is a favorite of Pope Francis too. Logically speaking I don’t know why any Catholic would bother reading the documents of Vatican 2. Best case you will learn things already taught in more clear and concise language elsewhere. Worst case you will finish reading and share the opinions of Cardinal Kasper and numerous other undisciplined heretics. Many times it is easier to arrive at the latter than the former. Just look up the mental jumping jacks conservative catholics have to do in order to reconcile DH with Tradition. Why go through all the work when its not necessary?
I am not defending the idea that the Council teaches error. Various Popes have stated that they can be interpreted in light of Tradition and I believe them. Whenever the Church gets around to clarifying what did and did not change ill happily listen. Until then, Ill just go on believing all the same things Catholics have for 2000 years until something clear comes out of the Vatican. Like i said, is there anything new I should know about? Has anything dogmatically changed since 1950? If not, whats the harm in ignoring the debacle altogether?
Ha! Well I’ll look forward to your response whenever you get around to it
Kenneth,
I’m sorry for taking so long to reply more fully to your comments on Vatican II here.
First of all, does it create any cognitive dissonance within you, when you consider the fact that, while you refer to Vatican II as a “debacle,” the Popes of the Council, and the Popes since the Council, have spoken and written of it as a gift to the Church– and a *great* gift?
Do you think that *all* of those Popes have just been trying to salvage a basically disastrous Council? If so, then why do they speak and write about it in such *overwhelmingly affirmative* terms? Would that not be disingenuous and deceptive on their parts, *if* your assessment of the Council is correct?
You ask what Vatican II teaches that is new. The Council *developed* Catholic teaching in important ways that are *legitimate examples of the historic development of doctrine* in the Catholic Church.
The Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism (UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO), having to do with the Church’s relationship with non-Catholic Christians, is one example. This Decree does not contradict previous Catholic teaching but rather develops it in important ways. You may find ecumenism problematic and wish that the Council had never taught on it, but our Catholic convert friend here, Lane, claims that the ecumenical language of Vatican II helped to bring him into the Church! The language of “separated brethren” is from Vatican II, and it has helped many Protestants and other non-Catholic Christians to actually *consider the claims of the Church and become Catholic*! http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
There is also the Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (NOSTRA AETATE), which, like the Decree on Ecumenism, did not contradict previous Church teaching but deepened it by thoughtfully considering the many implications of the fact that many people have never heard the Christian Gospel *through no fault of their own*. This document does not call for all of the Catholic missionaries to give up on proclaiming the Gospel. Not at all! It does, however, call Catholics to consider that at least some adherents of non-Christian religions truly do love God, even as their understanding of Him has not reached the fulness of Christian revelation. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
You may think that the manner of language employed in “Nostra Aetate” marks a problematic development in the Church, but if you do think that, the hard reality is, every Pope since 1965 disagrees sharply with you on that matter. Do you think that these Popes *just might* actually understand Catholic teaching, and its legitimate development, better than you– especially given that you are, by comparison, a relatively recent Catholic convert? A Catholic Cardinal has invoked the teaching of the document regarding the importance of Christians and Jews fighting secularism in our world today. Seems important to me! A rabbi also described “Nostra Aetate” as “life-saving,” which hardly sounds like a trivial matter: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholics-and-jews-must-unite-against-the-storm-of-secularism-religious-leaders-insist-84424/
Ultimately, Kenneth, your wanting to ignore Vatican II and its documents, as if it and they “never happened,” logically seems to imply that you think you understand the Council better than the Popes of 1958-2015. If I’m wrong on that, then why do you characterize Vatican II as a “debacle,” while the Popes view it as a great gift to the Church?
Christopher,
Its not even controversial that the fruits of Vatican 2 have been disastrous. If the statistics don’t speak loud enough for you, we could speak of the “continuing process of decay,” (Cardinal Ratzinger) “collapse of the liturgy,” (Cardinal Ratzinger), “silent apostasy” (Pope John Paul II), and “so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, the liturgy trivialized” (Pope Benedict XVI). We could also talk about how Pope Paul VI lamented the “smoke of Satan” entering into the Church and the fact that his very last words before his death were “stop the council. stop the council.” It could be that the Popes who support the council are being deceptive. It could also be that they are just wrong, and are too emotionally tied to the situation to see it for what it is.
Question: How am I supposed to tell the difference between a “compromise formula” and “development”? How am I supposed to know the difference between a pastoral recommendation and a development of doctrine?
Cardinal Newman thought that any legitimate development of doctrine would pass these 8 tests
1. Preservation of Type
2. Continuity of Principles
3. Power of Assimilation
4. Logical Sequence
5. Anticipation of Its Future
6. Conservative Action upon Its Past
7. Chronic Vigour
The doctrinal “developments” of the second Vatican council fail these horribly. Most especially the decree of ecumenism! Its certainly never been mentioned before in the history of Christianity, and it has never been given a clear definition since the council. Article 4 of Unitatis Redintegratio states that
‘The Sacred Council exhorts, therefore, all Catholics to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism.’
What are the signs of the times that one is exhorted to recognize? UR does not say. And what is ‘the work of ecumenism,’ given that ecumenism itself is not defined? No answer is given. To this day Catholics have been given no clear idea of what ‘the work of ecumenism’ is. In Article 6 of UR we are told that
‘the participation of Catholics in ecumenical work is distinct from preparation and reception into the Church [of those who] desire full communion.’
That is, ecumenism is something other than evangelization or catechesis, but UR does not explain precisely what that something is. We are told only that Catholics must now engage in the ill-defined “ecumenical movement” which involves ill-defined “ecumenical work.” Such nebulous directives have no parallel in any prior conciliar or papal document at any time in Church history. UR nevertheless employs the term [ecumenism] repeatedly, as if it had always had definite meaning:
‘Sacred theology must be taught with due regard for an ecumenical point of view
What is an ecumenical point of view? No one knows! Hooray for clarity! You say that “many” people have now considered the claims of the Church because of this “ecumenical point of view”. Really? Where are they? Maybe they can help rebuild all the abandoned catholic schools, churches, seminaries, convents, etc. that have been devastated since the council? All ive heard from my protestant friends is about how they are “all good” since vatican 2 and have no need to convert. How can i blame them? That is precisely the message the Church has tacitly spread for the last 50 years. They give more or less the same message to pagan religions in Nostra Aetate.
Not really. I think those Popes have been some of the worst in history. I would take the Borgias over Pope Francis. Just look to the fruit. Further, you have failed to explain exactly what changes i MUST accept as a Catholic since the second vatican council. MUST I be ecumenical? MUST I refer to protestants as “separated brethren”? Is ecumenism binding doctrinal content? If not, all you have is the private and completely unbinding opinions of some of the worst Popes in history to stand by. I’m perfectly comfortable ignoring those. Unless of course I am obligated as a Catholic not to?
Kenneth,
I sincerely tried to give a thoughtful reply to your questions about Vatican II, and you replied with a rant which nakedly displays that you think you are a better, wiser, more well-informed Catholic than every Pope since Pius XXII. I’m done trying to interact substantively with you on DXP or anywhere else online.
I’ve been down these roads with you before, and nothing has changed. The agnostics and atheists here are more open to questioning their narratives than you are open to questioning your “fairly-recent-Catholic-covert-who-is-nonetheless-a-better-Catholic-than-Saint John Paul II” narrative of “Vatican II and all of its Popes have been a disaster.”
It’s not just non-Catholics and non-other-kinds-of-Christians who see your hubris, brother. It fairly shouts out from your comments here. If you want to reply to me, you can have the last word. I will say no more.
Christopher,
I replied with a rant? Actually, I replied to your comments point by point and engaged everything you brought up. I quoted from the documents you mentioned, i pointed out the tests for development from newman, and showed that some of the same popes whom you think support the council lamented its affects. I did all this *without* calling you names or insulting your position. It’s unfortunate that you couldn’t do the same.
I don’t remember claiming that I am a better catholic than anyone. Again, it’s a shame that you are resorting to blatant ad hominems and personal attacks rather than responding to my actual comments.
If you don’t like me, or the way I talk about these topics, I have no problem with that. Not everyone enjoys polemics. Take care and thanks for the conversation.
PS,
If you ever go visit Daryls blog at old life you can read as protestants pound and pound and pound away at the “nothing to see here, everything is fine, Vatican 2 is great” attitude so many RCs exhibit. Daryl is wrong for thinking that these are good reasons to not join the Church, but he is correct in pointing out that all is certainly NOT business as usual.
Kenneth,
I apologize for the manner in which I expressed my frustration with your reply last night. I ask for your forgiveness, brother.
I honestly did not mean to resort to ad hominems or insults in my reply. From all of your comments on Vatican II that I have seen, whether with or with other discussions with other people online, it honestly does seem to me that you think you understand the Council better than the Popes since the closing of the Council.
You say that are willing to believe the post-concilar Popes when they say that the VII documents can and should be interpreted in light of Tradition– but yet you continue to criticize the documents, with no apparent openness to actually learning from them, and when demonstrations are made by orthodox Catholics of how the documents are compatible with Catholic Tradition, you characterize this as “mental jumping jacks.” Kenneth, if you really are open to understanding how Vatican II is compatible with the Church’s historic teachings, then you have a very strange way of showing that openness, because you seem to view demonstration of that compatibility quite dimly!
So many times during their Papacies, in their speeches and written works, Saint John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI drew upon, and actually quoted from, the documents of Vatican II, in ways which show that the documents are not only *compatible* with Catholic Tradition, but they are actually *part of that very Tradition*. In that vein, I am curious– have you read many of the encyclicals of JPII and Benedict XVI? “Veritatis Splendor”? “Redemptoris Missio”? “Fides et Ratio”? “Caritas in Veritate”?
You claim that you quoted various Popes lamenting the Council. The quotes that you gave from various Popes on Vatican II are, in context, not criticizing the *documents* of the Council themselves, but rather, criticizing a mentality on the part of certain people within the Church who actually wanted VII to *be* a radical break with Catholic Tradition– and to be understood as such. Pope Paul VI was not in favor of this “hermeneutic of rupture” understanding of the Council– and it was *his* Papacy which promulgated “Nostra Aetate.”
This address by Pope Benedict XVI on Vatican II certainly has some critical thoughts on aspects of it, but he clearly, overwhelmingly, speaks of the Council and its documents as gifts to the Church. If you are open to hearing how this Council was, and is, a very good thing in the life of the Church, then please read Benedict’s remembrance of it and reflection upon it, as a Church leader and future Pope who was actually there, participating in it: http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130214_clero-roma.html
You continue to ask, what, from Vatican II, must I follow? This way of phrasing the question seems to strongly a suspicion of the Council and a lack of openness to it. What must you follow? Well, it depends on whether you want to think with the mind of the Church, not *only* in 400 A.D. and 1300 A.D., but *also* into the present day.
The Magisterium speaks of Protestants as “separated brethren” and has done so since Vatican II (actually, there are earlier examples of that more positive tone toward non-Catholic Christians before Vatican II, but that tone was often not the predominant one.) Must you do so? Well, do you want to think with the mind of the Church, not only in the past but also today? If not, then what or who do you want to think with as a Catholic?
In Vatican II and since the Council, the Magisterium writes of followers of non-Christian religions as having *genuine parts* of the truth, but that the *fullness of truth* is revealed in Jesus Christ, and that the Church is *still called* to communicate that fullness of truth to non-Christians. No, the Church isn’t simply saying to Buddhists or Hindus or agnostics or atheists, “Repent, haters of God!” You seem to wish that this was were the Church’s mode of evangelization in the 21st century. However, it is not– but that does *not* mean that the Church has given up on evangelization! In the global South, converts from various religions are coming into the Church in droves– and from the online contact that I have had with Catholics in the global South, they *love* the Pope and listen to him and do *not* like a lack of openness *to* listening to him, whether from Catholics inside the Church or non-Catholics! These Catholic converts in the global South, at least from what I read from them online, are baffled and angered when they hear of “faithful Catholics” in the West speaking of the post-Vatican II Popes in very negative terms, such as you have here, calling their Papacies “disastrous.”
You continue to speak of the lack of vocations, the closing of convents, and such since Vatican II as seemingly irrefutable proof that the Council, and the Popes since then, have been terrible. However, when I look around at the genuinely Catholic colleges and seminaries and religious orders which are *thriving*, they are the ones which follow the vision of Saint John Paul II, and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and, yes, Pope Francis– all of them holding that Vatican II was and is a gift to the Church, and that Catholics should seek to understand its documents in continuity with Catholic Tradition, as articulated in official Church documents such as Papal encyclicals.
Examples of these thriving, orthodox, Vatican II-loving Catholic universities and seminaries in the U.S.? Christendom College. Thomas Aquinas College. The Saint John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family Studies. Franciscan University. The Dominican House of Studies. The Saint John Paul II Seminary. Increasingly, the Catholic University of America. There are many others, but I can’t remember them all at present.
Examples of thriving religious Orders of Sisters? One *booming* example is The Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist. They attract many young women to their convents (which are literally at the overflow point), and they warmly embrace Vatican II and the recent Popes! Try telling *them* that you want to think and live as if Vatican II never happened, and they will likely be baffled (and a few might be righteously angry)! Many other such thriving, orthodox Orders are listed and described here: http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/05/21/booming-traditional-relgious-orders/
One last thought– I could be remembering incorrectly, but in a comment that you wrote to another person on DXP recently, I seem to remember you saying that you don’t have *any* Catholic friends offline, in the physical world. Is this still the case? If so, then I would highly recommend seeking out a good Spiritual Director to help in finding ways to remedy this lack of healthy, physical-world, Catholic fellowship and challenge. All Catholics need that. Some claim that they don’t, but Scripture and Tradition strongly testify otherwise.
Christopher,
Thanks for the apology! Thank you even more for the thoughtful reply. Many times I think a lot of my personality is lost in these mediums. I don’t mean to come off as an arrogant know it all, but I’m afraid that I often do!
Fair point. The truth is that while I am not willing to admit that V2 teaches error in a strict sense I feel that the documents themselves can be very problematic. The Council never claimed to be laying down new doctrinal truth, but only wanted to “open up” the Church to the world and present her teachings in a new and modern way. Do you agree with me that at least in certain documents it can be challenging to reconcile this fresh perspective with Tradition? If so, don’t you think that there is some practicality in my position?
No, not the entire documents.
I agree that they have not always criticized the documents (although b16 did say that G.E.S. was “downright pelagian” in many places. However, I think that the continued search by orthodox catholics for genuine “doctrinal development” only allows those very same people who promote rupture a nice long leash to sew confusion. Hence, Cardinal Kasper is AMAZINGLY praised continually by pope after pope after pope. I could pound out a 20 page essay on the many heresies this man has promoted in the name of V2, and yet he routinely receives glowing endorsements from the bishop of rome. Why? Because he is viewed as a doctrinal pioneer of the council. One of those who *just might* be correct on how the Church has “developed” since V2. My approach says screw that! I say there is no development and there are no binding changes. When Kasper is viewed through the lenses of Pius he is plainly a heretic. Yet, when viewed through the lenses of V2 it’s unclear exactly what he represents. The question is what position is more healthy for the Church?
I hope my above comment helps to illuminate thus challenge. I do desire to think with the mind of the Church, yet it seems to me that our authority structure implies that the present is judged by the past and not vice versa. Don’t you agree? Which hermeneutic should an orthodox catholic use when reading V2:
That Tradition must be viewed in light of these documents? Or that these documents (that do not flow from a dogmatic council) should be judged by how well they reflect sacred tradition? In light of the current crises, which is the most practical view to hold for lay catholics?
What of thinking with Sacred Scripture and Tradition? These are the anchors of our faith are they not? With that said, I see your general point.
I’m not really sure what you have been reading. Most of what I read about coming from south America is that people are leaving the church in droves for charismatic protestant christianity. I am reading the link you posted from B16. I would ask that your read this link in return so we can better understand each other. This is the “disaster” I’m speaking of…
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/2011-0331-statement-of-reservations-beatification.htm
I do not doubt that there is still much good in the RC world. Even still, the collapse is staggering. If things do not change soon, in the next 40 years there could very well be only 1 or 2 priests per diocese. I will be an old man by that time, but it’s a troubling picture.
Kenneth,
Thanks so much for your acceptance of my apology and for your thoughtful reply! I had intended to respond in full to you today, but I just finished a very lengthy reply to Bob over at the “Culture War” DXP thread, and honestly, I need to rest my fingers from typing for a while! I’ll try to reply to your points and questions tomorrow or Wednesday. I am reading the article from “The Remnant” and thinking about it.
In the meantime, I hope that waiting for my reply will give you time to finish the address from Pope Benedict XVI (if you haven’t already finished it, of course!) on his experience and view of Vatican II. I found particularly interesting how he spoke of the difference between “The Council of the Fathers” and “The Council of the Media.” His observations therein directly speak to your concerns (which he explicitly shares) about the closed seminaries and convents after the Council.
Also, briefly, in that vein, in my previous comment, I listed (and linked to, regarding Orders of nuns) quite a few Catholic institutions which are currently bringing forth so many young, orthodox, holy men and women who are becoming priests and nuns. My Diocese, in the suburban Maryland/D.C. area, is booming with men and women who want to serve God as priests and nuns– and all of them whom I have personally met seem to warmly embrace Vatican II and the Popes since then.
I’ll reply more fully very soon!
Ok cool looking forward to it