Comments on: The Liturgical Gangstas 3: The Authority/Dissent Issue

By: wmcwirla

wmcwirla — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:56:45 +0000

“Iâ€™d say there is (or should be) nothing offensive about pointing out that Luther taught something different from what the Catholic Church taught and teaches!”

As a Lutheran, I would agree as a Lutheran. Lutheranism should be considered heresy to papal Catholocism. For Luther, it wasn’t a matter of choosing “what one likes” and rejecting “superficial baggage” but choosing what he believed was right according the Scriptures, and rejecting what was wrong.

As I cited in my original post, St. Paul says, “…for there must be factions (haireseis) among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Cor 11:19)

There are, at times, necessary heresies.

By: iMonk

iMonk — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:35:31 +0000

I”ll not be adding to the current line-up unless someone quits.

By: wmcwirla

wmcwirla — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:34:58 +0000

“I would equate him as the Joel Osteen of Catholicism.”

Wow! I thought we Lutherans were tough on each other. It’s good to get out into the ecumenical world once and a while.

By: Giovanni

Giovanni — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:41:29 +0000

With all due respect Beth Fr. McNeely represents the dying ember of what used to be a great religious order. Jesuits of tody are not the Jesuits of the Catholic Reformation, these are hippies that wanted to make the Church their own rather than God’s.

His book Catholicism without the Guilt has post-Vatican II nonesence written all over it.

I would equate him as the Joel Osteen of Catholicism.

By: Beth Cioffoletti

Beth Cioffoletti — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:04:42 +0000

P.S. I should add that I love the Catholic Church and that I am thoroughly Catholic to my bone. I appreciate that the Church, through its authority, has protected the mystery of Christ through the ages, for all ages, through sacrament and liturgy. But I think that in order for us to grow up, spiritually, we have to get away from this “rules” stuff, and recognize and assume our own roles and responsibility in discerning how to live as Christians in the world.

(You really should get some female gangstas on your panel:-))

By: Beth Cioffoletti

Beth Cioffoletti — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:21:23 +0000

Here’s an interesting quote from Fr. McNeely:

“God loves us more than we love ourselves. God judges us by our conscience not by the Church’s conscience or our parents’ conscience, but by our own personal conscience.

Simply put, the individual’s conscience is supreme. This belief has been – and will probably be – the best kept secret of the Catholic Faith.”

- from “Catholicism without the Guilt” by Fr. Maurice G. McNeely

I was introduced to the Jesuits at just the right time in my life – 1968. I was coming from a Catholic upbringing – conservative, but I didn’t recognize it as such at the time – in which everything revolved around “rules”. You must go to Church on Sunday. Mortal sin to do this or that. I was rebelling against the whole thing.

And then along came the Jesuits to take it to another level entirely. You can do whatever you want to do – but you alone are responsible for your immortal soul. Whoa!

By: Bror Erickson

Bror Erickson — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 02:39:48 +0000

Fr. Ernesto,
Actually I read Kittel on this, over and over and he is the one who convinced me it more ought to be translated Testament than not. I think it is also telling of the evangelical character of the Old Testament, and the translators of the Septuagint that they most often went with the word diatheke to translate Berith. Though I do admit that the word Berith is far more apply translated covenant, than diatheke is, Testaments also fall under a viable translation for Berith. I am not ignoring anything here. And this is not the only reason I think legalists have taken over Bible translation. But where the New Testament is concerned you hardly have reason to translate diatheke, as covenant over and above Testament, especially when it comes to the Lord’s Supper. But either way Fr. Ernesto, it was Christ not the early church that established the New Testament.

By: Petra

Petra — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 02:26:35 +0000

@orthodachshund:

I’d say there is (or should be) nothing offensive about pointing out that Luther taught something different from what the Catholic Church taught and teaches! I mean, it’s a fact! Or are you saying Lutheranism and Catholicism are the same?

The word heresy comes btw. from “hairesis”, the Greek word for “choosing” – choosing the bits and pieces one likes and throwing away what one doesn’t like. Of course Protestants thought and think that he was only throwing away “the superficial baggage” – but he was still “choosing”…

@postmodern puritan:
orthodachshund wrote about St Vincent of Lerins, you are writing about Nicene orthodoxy. But the Christological heresies are not the only heresies. The Donatists were quite ok, Christology-wise, for example, but were still heretics. (I hope it’s ok to call a long-extinct group by this name… )

By: postmodern puritan

postmodern puritan — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:02:15 +0000

Ok, are these comments to degrade into heresy name-calling?

How is Martin Luther POSSIBLY outside Nicene Orthodoxy or Christology?

Giovanni, if you have no substantially reasoned or exegetical answer to affirm that he is outside orthodoxy by this standard, then what basis do you have for throwing the “H” word around?

What are you basing this on, what the RCC teaches. We would all be heretics which are outside the RCC by your standard then. Is that a position you want to present on a blog like this?

By: Giovanni

Giovanni — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:55:56 +0000

To orthodachshund,

Sure if you change the definitions of words to what suits the occassion you can square all the circles you want.