POPE HIT THE MARK: AT ROOT OF CATHOLIC PROBLEMS IS LACK OF BIBLICAL SPIRITUALITY

SpiritDaily.com ^ | 10-05 | Spirit Daily

[Salvation]

POPE HIT THE MARK: AT ROOT OF CATHOLIC PROBLEMS IS LACK OF BIBLICAL SPIRITUALITY

He could not have hit it more squarely on the head. Pope Benedict XVI, toiling quietly, with little of the visibility enjoyed by his predecessor, nonetheless was giving hints that he is doing what he always has, what he is used to doing, what he did for a quarter of a century as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: working behind the scenes to hold the world's most important institution together, and he is starting where it must start, where it needs to start, where so many of the problems reside: with the Bible.

A few weeks ago, in a major pronouncement (albeit one underreported in by the Christian media), he said, "Assiduous reading of sacred Scripture accompanied by prayer makes that intimate dialogue possible in which, through reading, one hears God speaking, and through prayer, one responds with a confident opening of the heart. If this practice is promoted with efficacy, I am convinced that it will produce a new spiritual springtime in the Church" [our italics].

Above all, he was saying, we must remember Scripture.

Added the Pope, in speaking about Europe, "many Christian things occur, but there is also a great fatigue, and we are so concerned with structural questions that the zest and the joy of faith are missing."

As he prepared for Youth Day last August, Benedict XVI loudly rejected the idea of Christianity as a religion of rules and prohibitions and said he hoped to use his trip to spur "a wave of new faith" -- the type of faith that brings results, displays miracles, and springs forth from the Bible."

Let us add that the root of crisis in the Church is how little the Bible is heeded and how much worldliness has infiltrated. Too often, we compromise with society and its trends (its politics, its fashions) because we want to be "with it." We also confuse the word "religious" with "spiritual."

Religion is supposed to lead to spirituality. Frequently, it does not. It is the best way to obtain spirituality -- the narrowest gate -- but too often it leads only leads to religiosity (and a reverence for the codes of man instead of those of God). 

The remedy is the book it is all based on. The Church is in desperate need of biblical spirituality. Biblical spirituality is living a life modeled after those set forth as historical examples. It is feeling the grace that flows from the pages. We have plenty of theology. We have enough canon laws. What we need now is familiarity with that remarkable book and the knowing that it is of true supernatural origin.

Reading the Bible on a regular basis allows us to feel the actual move of the Holy Spirit -- to reach God through our hearts instead of through our self-important thoughts.

The Pope's words mimic those of saints like Therese the Little Flower -- who once said that "above all it's the Gospels that occupy my mind when I'm at prayer; my poor soul has so many needs, and yet this is the one thing needful. I'm always finding fresh lights there, hidden and enthralling meanings."

What happened at our seminaries? The Bible was pushed away as ancient literature (and even mythology) and Catholics have now seen the result. Show us a skeptic (one who does not believe in healing or exorcism or prophecy), and we'll show you someone who does not read Scripture.

We have become too secularized and too busy reading complex theology -- the ideas of others about the Bible, or about the ideas of previous theologians about the Bible -- instead of the Bible itself. We formulate complex ideas to impress others.

In other words, we get so wrapped up in the words of man that we forget the Word of God -- which encourages us to exercise spiritual gifts and to believe in the simple movement of Him everywhere (including in current events). When we read Scripture, we understand more about current events than if we read the newspaper.

A Church that is not prophetic, that is not Bible-based, is not a Christian one. It is the very foundation for our precious sacraments!

Call it "aridity" : there is a great spiritual vacancy in the intellectualized Western Church and from the vacancy has erupted scandal.

Unlike other written works, the Bible is alive and of endless fascination for those who come to know its actual power. It informs every day. It relates to different things at different times. It pertains to every circumstance. As Saint Therese said, it has a hidden nature that can be enthralling.

And it tells us what Christians are supposed to do: pray with a living faith, cast out demons, heal, spread the Word, love, give. During the disaster of Katrina the worldly institutions fell while the spiritual ones -- the churches, the charities -- picked up the pieces.

It is in the Bible that we find the richness of wisdom. It is in the Bible that we feel the Holy Spirit.

God will speak to you there.

Need an answer? Remarkably and often miraculously, it's in the testaments. 

[resources: the Catholic Bible]

[Rocketman]

How did you decide that I had somehow said you were the spanish inquisition? In my comment I made mention of a link that was given some time ago to a "hard core" anti-Vatican II website filled with photos of Pope Paul on toPope John Paul. Pics that "Showed" their crimes against the church in meeting with the leaders of other religions, and the site was filled with hateful rhetoric concerning these men calling them apostates and such.

That was the site that wished for the days killing heretics and etc. to come back.

And from what the other person Posted he had been horrified at what he had seen at that site as well.

So what do you do or say that might make you inject yourself into this context -- I want to understand?

[P-Marlowe]

Like hell.

He discovered Hell too?

[Rocketman]

Because it contains many references in scripture. But I disagree with the notion that its possession or use whether great or small replaces the Bible and in my read of Pope Benedicts words he seems to say the same.

So that reading the bible and study of would enhance the Catechism and expanding the vista's of its meaning and references in the Bible.

[Rhadaghast]

Please brother.

The first and foremost miss used (and totally destructive to this article and post in general) is the idea of binding and loosing. That means in essence that 'if the holy spirit directs a believe to do something that the church has not considered, it then can overrule the Holy Spirit for that person and tell them to stop.

This is giving veto power to 'a Man' on earth.

Oh but you say the holy spirit would never lead someone to go against the tradition or the word.

The protestants have, they have thrived, and they continue to follow as best they can the Holy Spirit, not the pope.

To paraphrase a famous quote:
"if it is not of God it will not continue, If it is of God you will not stop it."

Your pope and his cronies have for centuries disregarded the move of God in their practice and application of their supposed authority.

According to your very argument of binding and loosing, any pope could give credence to any doctrine of devil or God at any time.

The tradition of men is warned against in a warning by Jesus about a practice that is considered spiritual, but that is truly the attitude of religion. Saying this does not apply to the RCC is merely jousting at syntax.

There is no where in scripture that says we are to adhere to a single church government. What of the bureans? Why didn't Paul or Peter rebuke them for searching the scripture to see if what the apostles were teaching was true. The saints should have shown their authority and tradition there and then. They did not.

The practice of a central church as being the only church is nowhere supported in scripture.

Please brother; I see very little of the practice of the RCC as described in the catechism as having merit.

The interpretations and the documentation has been sifted and established to support the structure of the RCC. You assume that the structure of the apologetics of the Protestants is not sound or though out. It is and does continue to request that the RCC reform towards a more biblical stance. In Love.

Brother;

I will continue to agree that you are my brother, in Christ, as long as you offer me the same courtesy.

[magisterium]

Jumping into this thread a bit late here. I'd like to see a specific citation of the source material for this. I can't put a handle on it, but I think I've seen this somewhere before...Lorraine Boettner's infamous "Roman Catholicism," perhaps?

The Latin, as written, seems to check-out okay. But it's not all that hard to find anti-Catholics who know enough Latin to mimic a Church "document" that suits their own polemic.

[Rhadaghast]

Thank you

for giving me the reference to: the supreme king of kings the pope; who out ranks the very spirit of God on earth.

[Rhadaghast]

please define scripture. I believe that it is defined by the RCC as:

Scripture; that which is supported by tradition and only valid when looked at through that tradition as well as continually supported by the current pope and councils.

Who may at any time change or reconfigure those definitions as my be necessary to maintain the structure of said pope and councils.

[magisterium]

All of your argument about the pope "could give credence to any doctrine of devil or God at any time" presupposes the worst potentialities, because you are not Catholic. Part of the papal charism, from a Catholic perspective, is that the Holy Spirit will PREVENT the pope from defining any doctrine that deviates from the Deposit of Faith.

At least try to understand the Catholic definition of terms from the Catholic perspective first, before you read the worst case scenario into it.

You do not have Catholic faith. Certainly not in its fullness, at any rate. We believe that THAT faith comes from God. Read into this the proper implication.

The problem with these arguments is that the terminology is not mutually understood. Nearly 500 years after being cut off from its last contact with the Catholic Church, it's understandable that Protestantism finds some Catholic statements to be alarming departures from its own collection of traditions of understanding.

But let's be clear. If your traditions of teaching that differ from the Catholic Church's are right, then the ENTIRETY of church teaching was wrong right up to the 1500's. You can only be comfortable with that if you presuppose that Almighty God did NOT have a providential inclination to safeguard His Church's teaching from error, despite Jesus promise of the same in Matthew 28:19-20 and His prayer for unity in John 17.

You ignore the vehicle that Christianity travelled on right up to Luther as irrelevant, but, were it not for that vehicle, there would be no Christianity at all today, for it would have long since disappeared from the world, and Luther and the rest would have nothing to rebel "from."

The reason you, and some others on threads like this, dislike Catholic teaching so much is that your branch of Christianity has been so long removed from the vine that you can't recognize it for what it is. Your own highly developed theologies justifying a 500-year-old split take umbrage and offense at things that the whole of Christendom took for granted for the first 3/4 of Christian history to date. Is this simply arrogance on your part, or did it really take that long for some segment of Christianity to "finally" figure out the truth? The implications here should be pondered a bit before a snap answer is made.

[magisterium]

Are you quoting something here, or is this simply your own definition? If it's your own, you are simply creating a straw man argument, putting words into the mouth of the Catholic Church that it does not hold as its own. If you are quoting something, it is most definitely not anything Catholic, and I suspect it's most likely from some anti-Catholic screed. Either way, it's devious on your part to phrase things this way, as some not-too-careful readers may get the impression that this is how the Catholic Church actually sees itself in relation to Scripture.

There are obvious disagreements between posters on this thread. That's fine. But make your case, don't just flail around with ad hominems and non sequiturs, please.

[pro610]

***"You ignore the vehicle that Christianity traveled on right up to Luther is irrelevant,but,not for that vehicle there would be no Christianity at all today,for it would have long disappeared from the world,and Luther and the rest of the world would have nothing to rebel "from""***

Bingo!

Do you mind if I borrow that quote?

[P-Marlowe]

You ignore the vehicle that Christianity travelled on right up to Luther as irrelevant, but, were it not for that vehicle, there would be no Christianity at all today, for it would have long since disappeared from the world, and Luther and the rest would have nothing to rebel "from.

Somewhere along the road that vehicle blew a tire. Luther got out, changed the tire, and drove on. You are still sitting on the side of the road going nowhere. The vehicle has left the garage. You need to get on board.

[gscc]

Or did you just do a cut-and-paste job from some anti-Catholic screed?

The anti-Catholic screed I cut & pasted this from is "Prompta Bibliotheca canonica, juridica, moralis, theologica, necnon ascetica, polemica, rubricistica, historica", by Lucius Ferrarisa.  The "Catholic Encyclopedia" lists him as an eighteenth-century canonist of the Franciscan Order. The exact dates of his birth and death are unknown, but he was born at Solero, near Alessandria in Northern Italy. He was also professor, provincial of his order, and consultor of the Holy Office.  His work has went through several editions and the Encyclopedia remarks that it is "which will ever remain a precious mine of information..."  I found it so!!

[magisterium]

Sure. Go for it. What you have here, though, is slightly different from what I wrote in post 108.

[Campion]

Somewhere along the road that vehicle blew a tire. Luther got out, changed the tire, and drove on.

The Church is not a car. You imply that the Church Our Lord Jesus Christ founded could be in some way defective or able to fail in an ultimate sense. That is impossible because He is God.

And Luther didn't change a tire and drive on. He declared the car to be "antiChrist," blasphemed it, spat on it, and walked away saying "vroom, vroom, vroom".

[gscc]

I answered who the "infamous" author on the following post:

112 posted on 10/06/2005 12:22:51 PM PDT by gscc

[conservonator]

Can you link to the actual source of your post? The Latin to English part that you posted, thanks. Or, if possible can you link to an on line version of Ferrarisa's work? That would be great, thanks.

[jo kus]

You have to be blind - this of course was not posted for you but for those who can read and understand plain English and Latin.

I, too, can post things out of context...

The Bible says "there is no god."

See what a difference it makes when I drop off "The foolish man says...?

What does that say about your out of context posts which do not say anything about being above God?

Regards

[Campion]

The anti-Catholic screed I cut & pasted this from is "Prompta Bibliotheca canonica, juridica, moralis, theologica, necnon ascetica, polemica, rubricistica, historica", by Lucius Ferrarisa.

Did you actually look it up yourself, or are you going by a secondary cite in a Protestant polemical source?

I ask because I have seen such sources make up quotations out of thin air, and then attribute them to popes, cardinals, priests, bishops, councils, etc. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neigbor" goes right out the window when "thy neighbor" is a Papist. One of the more infamous examples is a completely fabricated "citation" from the Bull "Unam Sanctam" that has the Pope claiming to be God.

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" lists him as an eighteenth-century canonist of the Franciscan Order.

That's nice. Even assuming your quotes are accurate, he's one priest, expressing one priest's opinion. He's not teaching the defined dogma of the Church.

His work has went through several editions and the Encyclopedia remarks that it is "which will ever remain a precious mine of information..."

I find Dr. Albert Mohler's work to be a rather precious mine of information. Dr. Mohler is a Southern Baptist, and I am a Catholic. Am I really a Baptist, because I find his work agreeable and helpful in some areas?

If you can't find it reiterated in the Catechism, or in the decrees of an Ecumenical Council, or in the solemn decrees of the Popes, it's one priest's opinion. Nothing more.

[gscc]

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/1823-24.htm

[conservonator]

Did the book, the one your used as your source, the one you have access too since you cited it as your source, have an imprimatur or a Nihil Obstat? Is it part of the dogmatic teaching of the Magisterium or is it a scholarly work of a man: interesting but not infallible and binding?