Posted on 06/10/2007 3:02:20 PM PDT by NYer
Many modern people have the notion that the principal mission of the Catholic Church is to impose belief on unbelievers. The reality is that most of its time is spent trying to restrain belief in everything from spoon-bending to the aliens who allegedly speak to us through a cat in Poughkeepsie.
The riptides and cross-currents of religious enthusiasm in American culture are kaleidoscopic and dizzying. Cradle Catholics can be forgiven for just ignoring the whole thing and many of them do. But it’s still worth taking into account because some religious trends can have decided real-world effects.
Some of the effects of unrestrained belief can be amusing.
For instance, after five centuries of being told by Protestant polemicists that we “Romanists” do not trust the saving grace of Jesus Christ and ignorantly seek salvation by the works of the law, it is a weird thing for a Catholic to see the spectacle of kooky apocalyptic Protestants eagerly excited about the birth of red heifers because this will (they hope) be the prelude to rebuilding the Temple of Solomon and the re-institution of the Mosaic sacrificial system. Just how that Temple will be rebuilt when the Dome of the Rock is situated on the site of the Temple is not quite as clearly worked out.
Which brings me to something just as kooky, but less amusing.
Recently, James Dobson, a leading Evangelical and a usually sensible man, hosted on his show one Joel Rosenberg, author of something called Epicenter: Why Current Rumblings in the Middle East Will Change Your Future. Rosenberg claims to know “what the Bible says” about what is happening in the Mideast and is not shy about making “predictions regarding the fate of the Middle East regarding issues such as Iran’s nuclear threats against Israel, the arms race and ultimately ... Armageddon.” Here’s a snippet:
Dobson: “Well, Joel, let’s explain to everybody how Ezekiel 38 turns out, because Israel is about to be attacked, and a huge number of troops from Russia and Iran are coming toward Israel to destroy it, and what happens?”
Rosenberg: “Well, God is going to move. You won’t find in the Scriptures that the United States is coming to rescue Israel or the European Union, but God says he is going to supernaturally intervene — we’re talking about fire from heaven, a massive earthquake, diseases spreading through the enemy forces. It is going to be such a clear judgment against the enemies of Israel that Ezekiel 39 says that it will take seven months to bury all the bodies of the slain enemies of Israel. “
Such standard-issue Evangelical prophetic cocksureness is an excellent example of why a magisterium is so useful and necessary.
Not only does the magisterium help us know what is essential to the faith, it also helps us remain free of what is unessential. For the various species of Protestantism, in addition to denying real biblical truths such as the Real Presence or infant baptism, also have a tendency to invent “biblical truths” that do not exist and impose them by means of a sort of cultural pressure via charismatic preachers with pet theories who, in their own sphere, are granted an infallibility the Pope could never dream of.
Now, a Catholic is quite free to have a kooky private reading of Ezekiel 38-39 as a prophecy of the “coming resurgent Soviet Union” and its alliance with Muslims, communist Chinese or whoever, all in a vast Cecil B. DeMille battle against Israel. The Church has all sorts of room for eccentrics, and everybody needs a hobby.
But a Catholic is not free to go around telling everybody that “this is the clear teaching of the Bible” and demand it be believed. For the fact is, this kooky theory is emphatically not the clear teaching of the Bible, nor does it have any sanction whatsoever from the Church, the tradition, the Fathers, the councils or the popes. It is a pure novelty we can and should ignore.
What we should not ignore is Rosenberg’s claim that, “Given the events going on in our world today, people at the Pentagon, people at the CIA, people at the White House are asking to sit down and talk about these issues, to understand the Biblical perspective, because it is uncanny what is happening out there and it deserves some study.”
I suspect that Rosenberg is exaggerating his clout with the big cheeses in DC. I doubt that the Pentagon’s intel meetings are dominated by exegeses of Ezekiel 38.
But I do think it matters if a significant portion of the American polity drinks in such bizarre theories as if they were God’s revealed Truth.
Ideas have consequences, especially crazy ones. Most crazy ideas do no harm.
Crazy ideas about the Middle East, backed by the force of arms, stand a better than average chance of killing millions.
Thank you! It's a very valid one. Most people, especially Catholics, are ignorant about the 22 Churches that make up the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I think the deuterocanonical books may demonstrate a problem with tradition/scripture/magisterium as infallible since they seem to show them to be in conflict.
The Council of Trent seems to me to have changed the Catholic Church’s tradition with the inclusion of the Apocrypha. I am not a scholar so this is just my understanding. It leads to the question: which was right, tradition before the Council of Trent or the edict of the Church after the Council of Trent? Tradition or Magisterium?
I also wonder about a vote itself when there is exclusion of Protestants voting in the Council — is the Catholic Church the “Church” if great numbers of Christians are excluded? Is the Holy Spirit’s work divided? Or is the Church something greater than the Catholic Church (and if so can one part of a divided body claim authority for the whole without all the parts represented in the decision making process?).
2 Timothy 3 presupposes an understanding of what scripture is, and so in my quickly formulated view, where there is unresolved dispute among Christians, there is no infallible scripture. In other words . . . the additions by the Catholic Church are apocrypha because we do not hold them in common.
Blast away! And take this in a good spirit. I think the divide in the churches lead men to take positions and defend positions prematurely sometimes, contrary to their personal growth in Christ, in response to the assertions of others across some theological or denominational divide. In other words, sometimes we argue before we understand and discuss differences when what is in common is more important. Do we get a bigger slice of heaven if we have bigger brains? I don’t think so. St. Joseph of Cupertino is a good reference if you don’t know of him.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/JOSEPH.htm
I am not a mind reader. Stupid question.
How so? It's a very valid question. Where does 'Sola Scriptura' appear in the Bible? Please cite the passage.
As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." -- John 17:1-3"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Do all those 22 churches agree on everything?
Thanks for your kind words.
BTTT
According to your interpretation of scripture.
Have you read Samuel Morris’ biography?
Mocking it without reading it . . . would be . . . given your other assertions . . . more than a bit cheeky and more than a bit . . .
If you read it . . . what did you learn from it?
2) The Holy Spirit can lead men to Christ through the Declaration of Independence or a trout stream or Maya Angelou or a chiapet or a Slim Jim . . . but never EVER EVER the Magisterium. NEVER!
= = =
Putting words in my fingers is not very kosher, attractive, honorable, imho.
I never said that. I actually never thought that.
It’s quite plausible that some person who is a part of; some group of persons who are a part of . . . and even on occasion, the virtual whole of the magicsterical in any denomination could lead folks to Christ.
After all, that’s their supposed primary goal. It’s conceivable that they could at least approach that goal here and there . . . at least occasionally.
What I have yet to observe . . . is any such supervising body showing much humility—especially over time—and also admitting that they don’t know something or don’t have adequate information or authority to decide something seems to be exceedingly rare.
I'm just trying to ascertain what use other words would be that are beyond scripture. It's not sola samuel morris so I can't see any reason to read it.
I never claimed you said that.
Ahhhhhh . . .
But someone with seemingly broken mirrors
seems to equate
DISAGREEMENT
with
hate speech.
I don’t buy into that construction on reality in the slightest.
Wounds to unity
817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”
818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
Nah, that’s not it at all.
I mean that disagreement in these fora often takes the form of anti-Catholic hate.
BTW,
DISAGREEMENT with Roman doctrine, dogma, positions, rituals, constructions on reality . . .
is also
NOT equal
to attacking RC’s as individuals or collections of individuals.
Nor is even attacking RC doctrine, dogma, positions, rituals, constructions on reality
equal to
attacking RC’s as individuals or collections of individuals nor even the whole of the RC edifice.
Evidently for SOME of us, it is possible to selectively disagree with and attack those specific things which we find UNBiblical, UNChrist-like, UNChristian.
Of course, folks who find comfort in blackwashing, overgeneralizing, spiteful all encompassing generalizations . . . are quite inclined, it seems, to attack Proties with venom and claws quite evident. Evidently THAT is a kosher RC doctrine AND practice.
According to Scripture.
Question accusations all you want, but attempting to stifle any discussion
= = =
My impression has been for many posts now, that the only acceptable responses as far as the respondent I’m now replying to was concerned . . .
was 100% agreement.
Otherwise, the post would be considered a horridly assaultive hate speech against the RC edifice and against RC’s as individuals.
Please excuse me, but I don’t buy into that construction on reality, at all.
Petronski, if someone actually cites Jack Chick on an open thread, you have my full permission and blessing to smack them down for doing so. I’m not a fan of “anti-Catholicism”, hate speech, or religious bigotry either.
= = =
Ah, but Dear Alex, we have a problem . . . when . . . as seems to be the case . . .
ANY disagreement with RC doctrines, dogma, practices, traditions, . . . pontifications . . . genuflecting and the like
pours out of any Proty’s fingers . . .
THAT IN ITSELF is grounds on the part of at least one RC respondent . . . to accuse Proties of
—hate speech
—attacking the RC edifice unfairly, dishonorably, untruthfully etc.
—attacking RC’s as individuals assaualtively, unfairly, dishonorably, untruthfully etc.
It seems, this individual construes realty as ONLY allowing 100% agreement with the RC edifice if one wishes to avoid the current inquisitional attitude posted by some.
I assume you won’t hold your breath waiting for me to agree with such nonsense.
Yet again this assertion, pontification, sanctimonious screed . . . essentially
demonstrating yet again
. . . that failing to agree 100% with the RC edifice as personally interpreted and construed by . . .
is grounds for accusing others of
—hate speech
—attacking the RC edifice
—attacking RC individuals.
= = = =
I don’t really recall appointing you as my robot master or puppet master.
Thanks for the link.
Will check it out.
BTW, you may well expect that any series of questions which strike me as similar to the strings of questions Christ responded to with great hostility in the New Testament . . . I’ll likely continue to note the similarity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.