[Response to 2013 WSJ article] Cultural Catholicism and the End of Life: “You Earned It”

309 words of Wall Street Journal article posted on triablogue Blogspot ^ | Wall Street Journal August 29, 2013 : blog on August 30, 2013 | by PAUL MOSES Wall Street Journal copied by John Bugay

[RnMomof7]

I’ve mentioned that Roman Catholicism is so onerous because it puts its hooks in you at various times in your life – from baptism as a child, to “first confession” and “first holy communion”, then Confirmation as an early teen, then marriage, baptism of your own children, etc. It’s a programmatic cycle.

There is another point at which Rome is prominent, and that is at death. As the “Baby Boom” generation continues to age and die, people will continue to be focused on this phase of life, either as people focused on the end of their own lives, or that of their aging parents.

Paul Moses, a journalism professor at Brooklyn College/CUNY”, has written a piece for the Wall Street Journal this morning entitled “A Liberal Catholic and Staying Put”, which puts this in view.

Beginning the article with some comments from the atheistic “Freedom From Religion Foundation”, which urged discontented, liberal-minded Catholics to “Summon your fortitude, and just go”, he rejects this notion with the following comments:

To me, these invitations reflect a shallow view of the Catholic Church that reduces its complex journey to the points where it intersects with the liberal social agenda. Pope Francis’ pastoral approach has shown a more merciful, less judgmental face of the church—one that always existed but needed to be more prominent in the public arena.

After my father died last year, I realized that my instinctive resistance to these “just go” arguments—from the atheists, the secularists, the orthodox, the heterodox or anyone else—runs deep. It began when I observed how impressively the church was there for me in a moment of need (emphasis added).

This is where the programmatic structure of Roman Catholicism vis–à–vis human life comes into play. And while Moses accuses the “atheists, secularists, orthodox, heterodox, and anyone else” of having a “shallow” view of “the Catholic Church”, here basically is a basically shallow and un-engaged liberal New York professor coming into touch with the ritual shallowness of “the Church” and liking it.

Early on the morning after he died, I went to my father's parish, St. Peter's in lower Manhattan, to find out what to do to bury him. I found one of the priests in the sacristy after the early Mass. The Rev. Alex Joseph took my hands in his, spoke a beautiful prayer, told me of his own father's death years earlier and added, "Our fathers are always with us." I was much moved.

Given Professor Moses’s credentials, both as a professor and as a Roman Catholic, I found myself wondering why he would be first of all surprised, and then “much moved” by such a shallow and basically universalist statement by the priest “our fathers are always with us”. It seems to me that this priest was hedging his bets.

For any of you pastors who have had to attend at funerals of non-believers, you are probably aware of the difficulties of addressing this situation.

In Moses’s case, his father was a life-long Roman Catholic.

We decided to have my father's funeral in the Staten Island parish where he had worshiped for 25 years … Bernard L. Moses, who died at 88, had loved Father Madigan’s homilies, and to hear [Father Madigan] speak at the funeral Mass was to understand why. My father had advanced up the ranks of the New York City Housing Authority to director of management. Citing his concern for tenants, Father Madigan used the traditional Catholic term “corporal work of mercy” to describe what my father did. It explained for me, in those difficult moments, why my father, who was well-schooled in Catholic social teachings, had passed up the opportunity for a more pleasant career in academia, or a more lucrative one managing private housing, to work in housing projects instead.

Again, Moses is surprised by the motivations behind his own father’s career choices – that his father’s position in the liberal government program is reinforced by “Catholic social teachings”. The father’s life was spent first of all on “the sacramental treadmill” on Sundays, then during the week, doing government-sponsored “corporal works of mercy” was enough to get him into heaven, under the liberal Roman Catholic schema.

If we wonder why the United States can so willingly adopt the liberal agenda, this is one great and largely invisible source of power for that engine.

This article reminded me of something quite the opposite, related by J.I. Packer in his “A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life”. Packer said:

Few of us, I think, live daily on the edge of eternity in the conscious way that the Puritans did, and we lose out as a result. For the extraordinary vivacity, even hilarity (yes, hilarity; you will find it in the sources), with which the Puritans lived stemmed directly, I believe, from the unflinching, matter-of-fact realism with which they prepared themselves for death, so as always to be found, as it were, packed up and ready to go (emphasis added). Reckoning with death brought appreciation of each day’s continued life, and the knowledge that God would eventually decide, without consulting them, when their work on earth was done brought energy for the work itself while they were still being given time to get on with it (pg 14).

The Roman Catholic system is an on-going treadmill that in no way takes into account the realities of God’s Biblical Revelation – neither the joys of it, nor the realities – but rather, wraps itself around its own processes and the false salve of “you earned it” to the dying and reassurance that “you can still earn it” to shallow, unthinking liberal Roman Catholics like the professor Paul Moses.

[ealgeone]

No, Jerome was a better translator of the Greek than you ,are. This appeal to “any student Greek, etc” is nonsense. Saint Jerome was fluent in Greek and understood the nuisances of the language better than anyone.

Your opinion or fact??

You need to put up proof of your statement.

If you cannot substantiate that Jerome understood the nuisances of the language better than anyone it is your opinion and your statement should be modified accordingly.

[metmom]

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul tells the Corinthians in the Corinthian church that they are the body of Chirst and individually members of it.

Now, that was the Corinthian church, not the church at Rome.

So that raises two problems for Catholics....

One is that it defines what the true church is.

And two.....

It ain’t Rome.....

[CTrent1564]

metmom:

That is not what you said. You said there was no distinction of sin in the Bible. There are lots of “words not in the Bible” including the word “Bible”

Original Sin is a theological term that of course has its origin in the fall of man [Adam and Eve] in the Garden. Thus, all humanity because of Adam and Eve’s fall lost original justice and it should be understood not as a positive inclination do doing moral evil, but the lack of facility for doing good [Grace is what reorients man back to God]

Saint Paul’s Letter to the Romans [3: 0-12; 3:22-23; 5:12-19; 5:13-25] presents a theology of original sin and it was an appeal to Romans that Saint Augustine argued against the Pelagians in the debates about Adam and his sin and whether it passed to the rest of humanity. The Pelagians argued Adams sin only caused his death, it did not result in a sin that resulted in the death of the rest of humanity. Orthodox agree with this, they don’t say the rest of humanity inherited guilt, as the West does, but they do also accept the Doctrine of Original sin. The Councils of Carthage in 418 and Orange 529 affirmed the doctrine in the West [Trent reaffirmed both those early Councils].

Mortal and Venial again are theological terms. The distinction of types of sin is well supported in the NT.

In the Gospels [Mt 12:31-32; Mk 3:39] we see an unpardonable sin “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” not forgiven in this age or the age to come.

In Luke 12:47-48 there is the parable of the faithful and unfaithful servant, one gets a severe beating one gets a light beating. In John 19:11, Jesus clearly states “he who delivered me to you has the GREATER sin”. Saint Paul in several places lists serious sins [cf Gal 5:19-22; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:5-6].

In the other epistles, we see in 1 John 5:16-17 “if anyone sees his brother coming what is not a deadly [mortal] sin, we will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not deadly. There is a sin which is deadly; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin ,but there is a sin which is not deadly”.

For the record, most Catholic theologians see “the deadly sin here” as someone who was part of the Church and follower of Christ who has fallen into apostasy and went totally wayward, etc.

James 5:20 indicates that a Christian who brings back a sinner from their error “will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins”. Note multitude of sins [i.e. great number], not all sin, so this is consistent with acts of penance and charity towards someone.

Saint Peter in 1 Peter 4:8 presents a theology that is consistent with Saint James above when he writes “Above all hold unfailing you love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins.”

Taken collectively, the NT does make distinctions of the type of Sins starting with Christ himself in the Gospels as we saw unpardonable sin and greater sin [which means there is a lesser sin in that context]. Saint John speaks of deadly sin and sin that is not deadly and then both Saint James and Saint Peter indicate that and acts of charity to bring a sinner back and acts of charity/love of your fellow humanity covers “multitude of sins”, which are in the context of the other distinctions of sin, are not “deadly” sins.

Given the what I have posted above, it is my view that the NT does make a distinction of sin. To provide support for my statement, Greater Christian minds than me read the same NT and came to that conclusion long before you and I were born. For example Saint Augustine in “Sermons on the Creed, Chapter 15”; “The Spirit and Letter Chapter 48”; his “Homily on the Epistle of John Homily 6} clearly speaks of distinction of sin, using the term venial, original, etc

http://newadvent.org/fathers/1307.htm

http://newadvent.org/fathers/1502.htm

http://newadvent.org/fathers/170201.htm

Saint Jerome in his work “Against Jovinian Book 2 Chapter 30” uses the theological terms mortal and venial and of course cited 1 John 5:16-17.

I could go on, but I think this is enough to provide support for my claim.

[CTrent1564]

Here is a biographical sketch of Saint Jerome by Fr. Burkhardt, S.J. I think it is quite clear he was well versed in Greek and worked with 4 different Greek versions of the Bible, along with Hebrew versions, when translating his Vulgate Bible.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/302749/Saint-Jerome/3695/Later-literary-works

Another article by Fr. Foley, OFM, and it among other things indicates that Saint Jerome new Syriac and Aramaic as well, the language Christ most likely spoke. Taken together, this allowed him to render a translation into Latin, taking into account various manuscripts and using his great understanding of all the ancient languages at the time of Christ [Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin and Greek] that conveyed the meaning of the text, dynamic equivalent, without it sounding awkward [notice the word Superabundant was not used in translating the Lord’s prayer]

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep1997/feature2.asp

Jaraslov Pelikan writes on page 21 of his work “The Christian Tradition A History of the Development of Doctrine Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600AD) (1971): “Origen seems to have been one of the few Church Fathers to know and study Hebrew and Jerome says according to Eusebious, Origen new it thoroughly..but there is reason to doubt the accuracy of this report. Jerome however was celebrated as a trilingual man for his competence in Latin, Greek and Hebrew and Augustine clearly admired , perhaps even envied his ability to “interpret the Divine Scriptures in both languages” [that would be Greek and Hebrew, as both Jerome and Augustine were native Latin Speakers from the Western part of the ROman empire]

Note Pelikan wrote this in 1971 when he was Lutheran, he later became Eastern Orthodox, as an FYI. I respect his work but I cited him as to provide a Non-Catholic Scholar along with the 2 Catholic Scholars I cited.

Collectively, I think the information provided above supports my claim that Saint Jerome was indeed, a very competent scholar of not only Greek, but Hebrew, Latin and even Aramaic and Syriac.

[CynicalBear]

>>No, Jerome was a better translator of the Greek than you ,are.<<

I don't translate the Greek. As ealgeone stated, the errors of Jerome have been proven. It started already in Genesis where he changed "He shall crush your head" to "she shall crush your head".

[CynicalBear]

>>My Bible says, "and on this rock I will build my church,<<

No, it does not. It says "I will build my ekklesia which means an assembly of those called out. The Catholic perversion of that word presents a false meaning. The Rock it is built on is Christ not Peter.

[CynicalBear]

>>There are lots of “words not in the Bible” including the word “Bible”<<

The word "Bible" comes from the Greek word "biblos" and it is used ten times in the New Testament.

[metmom]

Interesting how so many words that are found in the Bible are ignored by Catholics, who say they aren’t there, and yet dozens of Catholic words that they say are Scriptural, can’t be found ANYWHERE in Scripture

catholic

pope

eucharist

sacraments

annulment

assumption

immaculate conception

mass

purgatory

magisterium

infallible

confirmation

crucifix

rosary

mortal sin

venial sin

perpetual virginity

apostolic succession

indulgences

hyperdulia

catechism

real presence

transubstantiation

liturgy

free will

holy water

monstrance

sacred tradition

apostolic succession

Benefactress

Mediatrix

Queen of Heaven

Mother of God

beatific vision

invincible ignorance

Divine Office

guardian angel

Corporal Works of Mercy

Petrine authority

[CTrent1564]

Yet, nobody translated the word into Bible in English. It means a scroll or book. The Bible as we understand the word is a collection of 73 books in the Catholic Canon, 66 in the Protestant. THus, the Bible is really, using the Catholic canon, 73 books [biblios].

So literally, the word Bible is in fact not in the Bible it is a word derived from some other word that came into English.

[CTrent1564]

CynicalBear:

Errors of Jerome proven by ????? Sorry, don’t agree and again, I provided evidence of his competence in all of the ancient languages, you have provided what, the opinion of cynicalbear.

[ealgeone]

Errors of Jerome proven by ????? Sorry, don’t agree and again, I provided evidence of his competence in all of the ancient languages, you have provided what, the opinion of cynicalbear.

I have not seen any proof from you on this....other than your opinion.

You said he was the greatest....if you can't offer proof of that, that all who have studied Greek confirm that Jerome was the best, then you are promoting a falsehood and should admit it.

[ealgeone]

Here is a biographical sketch of Saint Jerome by Fr. Burkhardt, S.J. I think it is quite clear he was well versed in Greek and worked with 4 different Greek versions of the Bible, along with Hebrew versions, when translating his Vulgate Bible.

Oh wait....we go from Jerome "understood the nuisances of the language better than anyone" to he was well versed!!

That's quite a change....from being better than anyone to being well versed.

So again, this proves my point in that you were promoting a falsehood. And when you were called on it you have to back down from your original assertion regarding Jerome.

As you have been caught promoting a falsehood, why should we believe anything you post going forward??

[CTrent1564]

ealgeone:

Jerome was recognized as the greatest Biblical Scholar of the early Church. Is there a 1 line statement saying he is the greatest, aka Ali the Boxer, no.

I can only point to the evidence, Pelikan’s citation as one. The amount of Letters that were sent to him asking him for clarification about Greek meanings and how they should be understood in Latin is there to see. Go to the CCEL library and look up Saint Jerome’s Letters and see the amount of respect Bishops, Popes, Saint Augustine had about his ability as a Biblical Scholar and knowledge of Greek. All the evidence supports what I stated that in the early Church, he was the best Biblical scholar and given he was closer to the Greek translations that scholars rely on today, I would argue culturally, his translations into Latin were better able to take into account the nuisances of Greek and Latin and the finer points of the theological meaning and render the translation appropriately.

I linked 2 articles from 2 Catholic Priests and cited Prof. Pelikan and his statements on Jerome as a Biblical Scholar.

So I have provided more citations on this point that either of you

[CynicalBear]

The double speak by Catholics is astounding. The fact that they fail to see the double standard is puzzling.

[CynicalBear]

However you do believe in the trinity right? The Catholic double standards are amazing.

[CTrent1564]

CynicalBear:

Of course I believe in it, and yes, it is a Theological word not in the Bible either. So in a way, you are making my point. Incarnation is not a word we see in the English Bible either, although it is in Jerome’s Latin Version of John 1:14, or the word incarnation is derived from.

As for Jerome, here is the introduction from P. Schaff’s translation of his works. While he doesn’t come outright and say “Jerome was the greatest Greek Scholar”, I think this introduction, written by a Reformed Protestant Church Historian, does support Saint Jerome being among the 4 greatest Western Doctors of the Latin Church, along with Saint Augustine, Ambrose and Hillary of Potiers. Those 3 were more Theologians, Augustine and Ambrose also Bishops. Saint Jerome was the Biblical Scholar among the 4. Hence, my claim he was the greatest Biblical Scholar of Patristic era.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.iv.I.html

[ealgeone]

Is there a 1 line statement saying he is the greatest, aka Ali the Boxer, no

Your words below....not mine.

"understood the nuisances of the language better than anyone"

You said he understood the nuisances of the language better than anyone. You said that.

And now you're backing up on your statement faster than Hillary does in her "evolving positions".

Now, you've even further limited Jerome to be the greatest Biblical scholar of the early church.

So which is it?? Understand the nuisances of the language better than anyone which carries the connotation of being the greatest all time ever or was he just the greatest biblical scholar of the early church??

You keep digging that hole.

[CynicalBear]

Genesis 3:15 and enmity I put between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he (ה֚וּא) doth bruise thee -- the head, and thou dost bruise him -- the heel.

Hebrew word for "He" - ה֚וּא

Hebrew word for "she" - הִ֛וא

It doesn't take a scholar to see the difference yet Jerome inserted "she" where the Hebrew says "He". Now even the Catholic Church admits it's not correct but tries to give some convoluted reasoning. It can be found here which includes a reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

So please don't try to tell us that Jerome didn't change the words of the original Hebrew.

[CynicalBear]

>>So in a way, you are making my point.<<

No, I'm not making your point at all. I'm pointing out the double mindedness of Catholics.

[ealgeone]

It doesn't take a scholar to see the difference yet Jerome inserted "she" where the Hebrew says "He". Now even the Catholic Church admits it's not correct but tries to give some convoluted reasoning. It can be found here which includes a reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The evidence continues to suggest catholicism being a cult. Stuff is made up. When confronted with facts standard talking points are offered or a blind eye is turned.

It is really amazing.