This Is The Future
Awhile back I read a book entitled "The Next Cristendom: The Coming of Global Christianity".
It basically talks about the power shift that will occur within Christianity during the 21st century, with the center of Christianity shifting from the West to the Global South (Africa and Asia in particular, but also Latin America). The greatest growth within the Catholic Church (and Christianity in general) is occuring in the Global South, and these believers are overwhelmingly more orthodox than their Western counterparts. I was reminded of this book when I read the following article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/22/wpries22.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/22/ixworld.htmlwhich among other things mentions that:
"In England and Wales, there were only 18 priests ordained this year and in the diocese of Dublin there was just one this year and there is none due to be ordained next year. In contrast, Nigeria alone has about 5,000 men training to be priests."
That book was an eye-opener for me, and gave me great comfort. The modernist/secularist influence within the Church is (slowly) dying. The dissenters (primarily Westerners) crying for doctrinal changes within the Church (women priests, artificial birth control, changes in the definition of marriage, universalism etc. etc.) are becoming a slowly withering voice and to put it somewhat harshly, are embracing a pipe-dream (not only because I believe that the Holy Spirit would never allow such doctrines to be held by the Catholic Church, but that the demographics of this century show the practical impossibilty of this occuring). Some of the greatest Sees of the Catholic Church may possibly again be found on the African continent, as Carthage and Hippo before them. The majority of the Bishops and College of Cardinals will be comprised of what we consider "minorities" in the West. Perhaps we will see an African or Asian Pope, I can hardly think of anything more healthy for the Church.
Lest I sound too triumphalistic, Modernism and Secularism are not dead. Perhaps the greatest heresy to challenge the Church still strangles the West, and will continue to try to exert influence on the South. The battle is still young, and continues to sweep those from the Faith who are willing to buy into a 100-year-old fad over against 2000 years of Church teaching. It is an exciting time to be a Christian, and a Catholic, for these are the days when great Saints are born to stubbornly testify to the Truth.
"We are the successors of the martyrs and tremble not before the successors of Julian the Apostate. We are the sons of the crusaders and we shall never yield to the sons of Voltaire."
–Comte de Montalembert
posted by Peter @ 3:08 PM
13 Comments:
Sounds like an interesting book with an optimistic opinion. It's quite obvious the gospel sees more acceptance with those who view themselves as needy rather than lacking nothing. Christ came to save sinners, not the righteous. Thanks for the book tip.
I must say though that I found your statement:
<...I believe that the Holy Spirit would never allow such doctrines to be held by the Catholic Church>
interesting to say the least. The context was about women priest, bc, marriage, universalism etc. I'm wondering if I understand you correctly. You feel that the RC Church will NEVER allow these heresies? Rather that the HS will not allow such things into the RC church? I'm also wondering what your definition of heresy is? Do you feel that there are any unbiblical doctrines in the RC church presently or historically?
I'm wondering if I understand you correctly. You feel that the RC Church will NEVER allow these heresies? Rather that the HS will not allow such things into the RC church?
>>>I believe that the Catholic Church will NEVER allow these heresies, due to the protection given by the Holy Spirit to the Magesterium of the Church.
For the dissenters who deny that the Catholic Church has such a charism and protection given by the Holy Spirit, the simple demographics would indicate that on simply a pratical level such changes are unlikely. The West is quickly becoming irrelevant as a voice for Global Christianity.
I'm also wondering what your definition of heresy is?
>>>I'll let St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) define it for me: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas."
I believe that the Catholic view (and Eastern Orthodox to a great extent) of what the Church is
and its relationship to Tradition (whether that be written Tradition [Scripture] or oral Tradition) is a prerequisite to declare certain doctrines dogmatic versus heretical.
Do you feel that there are any unbiblical doctrines in the RC church presently or historically?
>>>There have been no dogmatic statements made by the Extraordinary Magesterium (either in Ecumenical Council united to the Pope, or ex cathedra Papal pronouncements) past or present that are contrary to the original deposit of faith, and as such are not opposed in any way to Sacred Scripture (although perhaps not explicitly taught in Scripture in the most literalistic sense).
There have been many individuals from the beginning of time within the Catholic Church that have promoted heretical doctrines, but not in dogmatic Church teaching. The infamous sale of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins comes to mind, but the Catholic Church never stated that indulgences forgave sins in any official teaching. Trent reiterated the dogma of what the Catholic Church believed regarding indulgences.
Heresy.
I would agree with St.Thomas' definition of heresy/heretics. To be true to the word we must also acknowledge it's mutable nature. The thing defined changes every generation. It's a very relative term from our finite perspective. To assume otherwise would to be as God.
i have a feeling that peterjimmyjohnson is going to have a problem with this last post.
Two things.
From what I remember at one time in the Catholic church, one was considered a heretic if he didn't believe the world was flat.
Secondly regarding:
'There have been many individuals from the beginning of time within the Catholic Church that have promoted heretical doctrines, but not in dogmatic Church teaching. The infamous sale of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins comes to mind, but the Catholic Church never stated that indulgences forgave sins in any official teaching.'
I'll take your word for it that the RC church never had any official stance on declaring indulgences forgave your/another's sins. But, as a church they are responsible for what it's members teach. Official dogma or not, the church is responsible for it's official/unofficial teaching/doings.
To reiterate another idea about heresy. All truth proceeds from the Godhead. He is the embodiment of absolute truth. We do a pretty good job of messing it up in spacial sense; history is far too plain on this point.
What will happen to your view of 'heresy' if/when the Catholic church allows women priest?
I would agree with St.Thomas' definition of heresy/heretics. To be true to the word we must also acknowledge it's mutable nature. The thing defined changes every generation. It's a very relative term from our finite perspective. To assume otherwise would to be as God.
>>>I don't agree if I'm understanding you correctly. Different heretics and heresies arise in different generations, but a heresy during one age is a heresy forever. A heresy is a perversion of Divine Revelation, and as Divine Revelation is always True, a heresy as a perversion of Truth is always a heresy, regardless of social, political, philosophical, etc. assumptions of any particular age. If someone promoted Arianism or Gnosticism (as some do in some form or another today) do they fail as being heretical because they are not within the age and particulars of the generation when those heresies were defined? Again, I may be misunderstanding what you meant.
i have a feeling that peterjimmyjohnson is going to have a problem with this last post.
>>>Hey Jeremiah, thanks for dropping in here. I'll give you a call soon. Have a thankful Thanksgiving.
From what I remember at one time in the Catholic church, one was considered a heretic if he didn't believe the world was flat.
>>>Urban legend? Was St. Thomas Aquinus considered a heretic: "the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion—that the earth, for instance, is round" (I: I:1:2). As much my admittedly little knowlege on this subject has perceived, Medieval scholars debated details related to the size of the earth and oceans, but no serious scholar believed the earth to be flat. The great medieval religious scholars, such as the Venerable Bede, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas, added to much earlier Greek knowledge with their own calculations. Christopher Columbus, a devout Catholic, believed (along with his contemporaries) that the earth was round, and was not considered a heretic to my knowledge. If you can point me to any Dogmatic statement of the Church that considers those not ascribing to a flat earth heretics, please send them my way. And be sure of your sources, that they are not simply atheists trying to show that the Catholic Church was at war with science, and therefore science is the only source for truth (these notions having been popularized over the last century).
you're right. In the strictest sense, a heresy is a heresy is a heresy. You realize though that the word gets thrown around an awlful lot. I too must confess. I was taught in a gov't school so my knowledge of dogmatic processions from the chair are limited. But didn't Galileo get reproved because of his notion of the solar system?
You've peaked my interest in ex cathedra pronouncements. This whole dialogue gets back to infallibility doesn't it??!!
I'll take your word for it that the RC church never had any official stance on declaring indulgences forgave your/another's sins. But, as a church they are responsible for what it's members teach. Official dogma or not, the church is responsible for it's official/unofficial teaching/doings.
>>>In a limited sense, I agree. The failure of the Catholic Church at times to address and correct individuals who were/are teaching heresy or acting immorally no doubt led to the confusion of some of the faithful and caused many problems in the life and witness of the Church.
To reiterate another idea about heresy. All truth proceeds from the Godhead. He is the embodiment of absolute truth. We do a pretty good job of messing it up in spacial sense; history is far too plain on this point.
What will happen to your view of 'heresy' if/when the Catholic church allows women priest?
>>>All Truth proceeds from the Godhead, and the limited portion of Truth that God has entrusted to mankind to follow and live is Divine Revelation. As much as many Evangelicals are maligned for individualistic subjective interpretations of Scripture, I find no comfort in the Reformed concept of the Church (if there is a generalized definition, and if I have yet come to understand it properly). I see the definition of the Church as essentially "many visible authoritative churches" as simply institutionalized (denominational) subjectivism which is equally as troubling (oops, off topic).
If the Catholic Church theoretically allowed women's ordination I guess I would return to square one in a sense. Again, I don't think this can or will happen. Pope John Paul II in his 1994 Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis stated:
"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
Peter has spoken, let the dissenters dissent. If any women are reading, please read the entire Letter, as this is in no way an attack on the dignity of women and he a good deal of this short letter is adressed to this point. Holy Orders is a Sacrament instituted by Christ to be conferred on men alone, and the Church has no authority to change a Sacrament, which by its very nature is immutible (and for similar reasons, the Sacrament of Marriage can never be conferred on any other than a Baptized man and a Baptized woman).
But didn't Galileo get reproved because of his notion of the solar system?
>>>If you have an interest in reading about the Galileo affair from the Catholic viewpoint read the following article:
www.catholicleague.org/research/galileo.html
I think it is a rather fair portrayal.
You've peaked my interest in ex cathedra pronouncements. This whole dialogue gets back to infallibility doesn't it??!!
>>>Everything goes back to issues of authority, to which infallibility so intimately linked. Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 4.
Hey Matt......You could have had this discussion over milk stout (brewed at the left hand brewery). Of course you didn't show up, something about having a photo taken of you and 2 pretty girls. Rest assured, I drank your share and it was good.
This conversation would have been so much better over Milk Stout. In fact Scott had enough to allow him to catch a few zzZZZ's early in the evening.
Post a Comment
<< Home