I cannot get enough of the old Novus Ordo Mass (English Mass). By and large I think the recent changes in the Mass are not positive. In the old Novus Ordo Mass they used to say "[Christ] will come again in glory." In the new Novus Ordo it says the flat "Christ will come again." Really, how will he come, my heart cries. Is he taking a Greyhound or will he come with the angels?
Peace Be With You....And With Your Spirit
This also leaves me flat. So you do not care about my body? Only my spirit matters to you? Well that is contrary to the Catholic Faith about the image of God being secondarily in the body? We do not need to relegate that truth.
Singing the Lamb of God in Latin
I do not think about myself in this, because I understand the Latin. However, many people do not. The Mass is a tool of evangelism, not just for Catholics. Again, you are cutting people off from the meaning, because the Mass is a public event, not a private one. It is for all those who wish to attend. There have been several converts who just sat at the mass and learned about the faith that way. Many of them later converted, but it took time.
In Praise of the (Old) Novus Ordo
With the subtlety and mystical orientation of the old Novus Ordo, it is more conducive to me to contemplation than the new Norvus Ordo. What a beautiful time we had with the old Novus Ordo. I miss it dearly.
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Catholic Fantasy Fiction
I have heard many criticisms of Fantasy Fiction in Catholic circles. There have been many blogs about Harry Potter and other fiction being immoral because of the magic involved. Even the pope, prior to his papacy, has spoken on Harry Potter, concerned about young readers and that:
An important point to make, is that Pope Benedict has not spoken on the matter. Only Cardinal Ratzinger did. Thus the statements have no binding authority. They consist of a theological opinion, unless it can be shown that Pope John Paul II had approved the letters.
Full Disclosure
I am a Fantasy Fiction author. For those of you who do not know, I am the author of The Hammer of Justice, a fantasy novel with Catholic underpinnings (read deeply to see them, although some are more obvious). I have considered whether fantasy fiction is moral or not. It is very clear to me that it is, since it is fiction. If I were to portray it realistically, endorsing its practice, I would have failed. In fact, in my novel, I portray sorcerers as practicing evil and juxtapose good clerics against them.
Where I Draw the Line
I have a big problem with realistic magic, that was practiced by witches and sorcerers in that past, favorably portrayed. The Church has been clear about its condemnation of sorcery, and to even suggest that such practice is even morally neutral, is immoral in my book.
Tolkien, of course, is talked about on the Vatican website in a positive light. The challenge with sorcery is to make the word sorcery properly characterized as evil. What do you think?
It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly.Cardinal Ratzinger's concerns were correct. Having every wish fulfilled by the wave of a wand, is problematic for Christianity. There is no submission to the will of God in these acts. However, the courage and determination of Harry Potter to protect others shows the virtue of fortitude. So Harry Potter can be a mixed bag.
An important point to make, is that Pope Benedict has not spoken on the matter. Only Cardinal Ratzinger did. Thus the statements have no binding authority. They consist of a theological opinion, unless it can be shown that Pope John Paul II had approved the letters.
Full Disclosure
I am a Fantasy Fiction author. For those of you who do not know, I am the author of The Hammer of Justice, a fantasy novel with Catholic underpinnings (read deeply to see them, although some are more obvious). I have considered whether fantasy fiction is moral or not. It is very clear to me that it is, since it is fiction. If I were to portray it realistically, endorsing its practice, I would have failed. In fact, in my novel, I portray sorcerers as practicing evil and juxtapose good clerics against them.
Where I Draw the Line
I have a big problem with realistic magic, that was practiced by witches and sorcerers in that past, favorably portrayed. The Church has been clear about its condemnation of sorcery, and to even suggest that such practice is even morally neutral, is immoral in my book.
Thus Ex 22:18 condemned the sorceress to death without explanation. Lv 19:26 and 31 prohibited magic, astrology, necromancy and divination; Lv 20:27 added the calling up of spirits. Dt 18:10-11 summed this up by proscribing soothsayers, astrologers, magicians, sorcerers, charmers, those who summoned up ghosts or spirits and those who consulted the dead (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Christian Faith and Demonology).Even J.R.R. Tolkien portrayed sorcerers as evil. The stronghold of Sauron, Dol Goldur (Hill of Sorcery), is described as a dark, evil stronghold. Sauron is, of course, the dark lord and archenemy of Lord of the Rings.
Tolkien, of course, is talked about on the Vatican website in a positive light. The challenge with sorcery is to make the word sorcery properly characterized as evil. What do you think?
Friday, October 21, 2011
Sheep-Stealing?
There is a common saying amongst priests and religious today, that I first encountered in the 1990s. I was visiting the Paulist Community in Washington, D.C. when a priest there said that evangelization of Protestants was "sheep stealing."
I was taken aback by this saying and I did not know what to make of it. Later in the car I thought something like "So Protestants are just another [valid] Christian Community who preach the truth? All the talk of Protestants being in heresy is just overblown?"
I did not know what to think. Not having much theological education at the time, I did not have the arguments to refute it, except several so-called Catholic theologians opinions. Some were orthodox (correct) and some where heterodox (incorrect). This left me confused for a couple years, until I formally studied theology and understood the error. This confusion is the reason we must be careful what are the implications of our belief. To say that we are "sheep stealing" is to imply that Protestant Communities are valid Christian Communities, with correct doctrine. This is not true.
There is No Such Thing as Sheep Stealing (Catholic vs. Protestant & Orthodox)
While there have been agreements between the Catholic Church and various Orthodox Communities not to proselytize, this does not infer that the Orthodox have 100% valid doctrine. These agreements are simply pastorally prudential decisions to allow dialogue between the two communities to take place in relative peace.
The Catholic Church is not validating all Orthodox Doctrine, including Papal Primacy and The Filioque (The Generation of The Holy Spirit within God) or Sola Scriptura. They are simply trying to keep the waters of discussion from the storms of upset that occur when an Orthodox or Catholic are converting to the converse faith.
This being said, evangelization is supposed to continue:
It runs counter to reason that anyone in Heaven is a non-Catholic. The Church has been clear, dogmatically, that our Blessed Mother was assumed body and soul into Heaven (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2853). It has also been clear that Jesus Christ is God. When we enter Heaven, we no longer believe. Belief, in a sense, is transformed into knowledge when we will see God "face to face" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #163).
So a muslim in Heaven continues to be muslim? The Koran is clear that it teaches that Jesus is not God: "it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that he should beget a son" (Koran, Surah 5:92). So, we only have former muslims in Heaven, not a current muslims. Why? Because they behold the face of the Son, who is God. This is antithetical to Islamic doctrine.
While the Church is clear that persons of goodwill can enter Heaven. That is, persons who pursue the Truth to the best of their ability, and are in invincibly ignorance (have no chance to know better). It is also clear that:
The danger for not embracing the truth of the Church, is committing the mortal sin of faith by belief in Relativism. Rather the way of righteousness requires a far holier path.
I was taken aback by this saying and I did not know what to make of it. Later in the car I thought something like "So Protestants are just another [valid] Christian Community who preach the truth? All the talk of Protestants being in heresy is just overblown?"
I did not know what to think. Not having much theological education at the time, I did not have the arguments to refute it, except several so-called Catholic theologians opinions. Some were orthodox (correct) and some where heterodox (incorrect). This left me confused for a couple years, until I formally studied theology and understood the error. This confusion is the reason we must be careful what are the implications of our belief. To say that we are "sheep stealing" is to imply that Protestant Communities are valid Christian Communities, with correct doctrine. This is not true.
There is No Such Thing as Sheep Stealing (Catholic vs. Protestant & Orthodox)
While there have been agreements between the Catholic Church and various Orthodox Communities not to proselytize, this does not infer that the Orthodox have 100% valid doctrine. These agreements are simply pastorally prudential decisions to allow dialogue between the two communities to take place in relative peace.
The Catholic Church is not validating all Orthodox Doctrine, including Papal Primacy and The Filioque (The Generation of The Holy Spirit within God) or Sola Scriptura. They are simply trying to keep the waters of discussion from the storms of upset that occur when an Orthodox or Catholic are converting to the converse faith.
This being said, evangelization is supposed to continue:
"For that reason, Saint Paul's words are now more relevant than ever: 'Preaching the Gospel is not a reason for me to boast; it is a necessity laid on me: woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!' (1 Cor 9:16). This explains the Magisterium's particular attention to giving reasons for and supporting the evangelizing mission of the Church, above all in connection with the religious traditions of the world" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, 2).While we are to respect other faiths, not forcing our views of people of faith (Dominus Iesus) we must present the truth, even to Christians:
"Today the Church must face other challenges and push forward to new frontiers, both in the initial mission ad gentes and in the new evangelization of those peoples who have already heard Christ proclaimed" (John Paul II, Redemptoris Mission, 30).Are Non-Catholics in Heaven?
It runs counter to reason that anyone in Heaven is a non-Catholic. The Church has been clear, dogmatically, that our Blessed Mother was assumed body and soul into Heaven (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2853). It has also been clear that Jesus Christ is God. When we enter Heaven, we no longer believe. Belief, in a sense, is transformed into knowledge when we will see God "face to face" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #163).
So a muslim in Heaven continues to be muslim? The Koran is clear that it teaches that Jesus is not God: "it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that he should beget a son" (Koran, Surah 5:92). So, we only have former muslims in Heaven, not a current muslims. Why? Because they behold the face of the Son, who is God. This is antithetical to Islamic doctrine.
While the Church is clear that persons of goodwill can enter Heaven. That is, persons who pursue the Truth to the best of their ability, and are in invincibly ignorance (have no chance to know better). It is also clear that:
“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (Vatican II, Paragraph #14, Lumen Gentium).and...
“...it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions...” (Dominus Iesus, Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church).Is it not time that certain individuals killed relativism in their own hearts? Maybe what they might find is a flourishing desire for the conversion of others, not a condemnation of others as some might fear.
The danger for not embracing the truth of the Church, is committing the mortal sin of faith by belief in Relativism. Rather the way of righteousness requires a far holier path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)