www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall What would you say if . . .

you heard some of these from the pulpit?







Oh, and I'm "whoring" after the gods of the past by clinging to orthodoxy--big or little "o"--because the New Age of the Church is here now.

I sit and wonder if I'm nuts after a dose of this kind of stuff.

BOB,

I'd get up and leave and never go back.

And I did!

God Bless You,

Dr. Eric

Dear Bob,

These are awful! Lord have mercy!

Can't these heresies be reported somewhere and to someone who will take them seriously? (Directly to the Pope, perhaps?)

In my eyes, this priest is not really a believer; he is not a Christian of any sort--forgive me for saying this but I think that he is practicing New Ageism rather than Christianity. He is definitely espousing major heresy.

I would say to pray for him if you can, but for your own sanity and the peace and holiness of your soul, to leave.

You have obviously done all you can do and you have not stood idly by. You can have a clear conscience about that.

Respectfully,
your sister in Christ,
Alice

I agree with Dr. Eric with the part about never going back, but I think I would wait until Mass was over and tell the priest to his face that he is the worst of heretics.

Ryan

How about . . .



My question is, Doesn�t that make God the author of evil?

Isn�t it more accurate to say that He ALLOWS evil because He respects the God-given free will He has given us to make a choice either for Him or against Him?

Theophan,

Your understanding is correct. These "preachings" truly are awful. Is this by any chance a "Latin" priest? If prayer and fraternal correction is ineffective, I'd certainly look for a different parish.

I've had two similar experiences in the last couple of years, but the priests were "helping out" the parish, not resident.

The first involved a 70-year old priest who gave a sermon on "the virtue of selfishness" and then proceeded to prayer an "anaphora" of his own composition (with his eyes closed). I was concerned that perhaps the Holy Mass was invalid, but I noted that he did say the words of the Institution according to the rubrics (and I hope he had the intention of doing what the Church does). The experience left me feeling dirty.

The second was last year for the Sollemnity of Corpus Christi. The 65-year old priest's homily dealt with the presence of Christ everywhere but in the Holy Eucharist, and this to the congregation of a parish with Perpetual Adoration! Again, I felt dirty.

I think that it is the Evil One who is oppressing these poor men, along with the hermeneutic of discontinuity of the last 40 years!

Michael

Your comment is the right one. The priest is teaching heresy and should stop.

I wouldn't go back.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

Theophan,

As a Marquette University almunus (sp?), I can say that my wife and I heard these kinds of things all the time in campus Masses and in neighboring parishes. One time, I did walk out, right after the sermon. On other occasions, I stayed but I was so angry I did not take communion (and there were some cases where one really could wonder whether it was a valid Mass). Perhaps, the ideal thing to do would be to tell the priest, gently, that his teachings are clearly not in line with the Gospel and then, based on his response, indicate that you will not be back to worship but will find another parish. The key though is to be gentle and respectful (this is the hard part!). I have never done this before because I don't think that I could go up to the priest and remain composed. To be honest, when I was a Melkite Catholic, I simply picked one or two Latin parishes where I knew that the priest would not be preaching nonsense and those were the only Latin rite Masses that I would consider attending. I had to stop going to campus Masses altogether and though I went to my own baccalauriate (sp?) Mass and was even cajoled into being a eucharistic minister (that is another story and it was one of the most horrific experiences of my life), I stopped going to all future baccalauriate Masses. My Melkite priest and spiritual father encouraged in this direction by indicating to me that going to Mass was (for me) an occasion of sin. So, I decided just not to put myself in a position where I would be tempted to ruin my whole Sunday with anger and resentment.

Joe

I've never heard this one. Sin is part of the human condition, but we're supposed to strive not to sin. I'm not into embracing my sin.


What about all those people who followed Jesus and listened to Him - oh, say, like his Apostles and friends and many, many curious folk who came to hear a great Teacher? Were His words written down by others? Yes. Are they part of history? Yes. Did the Gospel writers have different focuses? Yes.


Did anyone see the actual Ressurrection? No. Did they see the after effects? Yes.


I wanna go to Heaven. It beats the alternative.


Huh??? Try to be good. You aren't supposed to try to be bad. All the "life advice" Jesus gave out was about being good.


Again. Huh??? Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this earth. Obviously, He had "someplace else" in mind.

Dr. Eric:

No. I was being entirely serious. I don't generally care for personal confrontation-particular with my sisters and brothers in Christ, but this level of heresy calls for a rebuke.

Ryan

Huh, we are more alike than I thought.

My answer has been that I ACCEPT that I am a sinner, that I need grace (Christ's life leavened and inspired by the Holy Spirit), that I need the help of the prayers of the Communion of Saints, and with all that and my own will to repair the relationship with God ruptured by sin, I can become MORE THAN who I am and become what I should be.



My answer is that the oral Tradition is reflected in the written Word of God and the fact that the bishops were able to agree some centuries later when the canon was settled gives credence to the fact that they all recognized in the written Gospels and letters the common teaching that they were taught and were continuing themselves to teach. Beyond that, the Holy Spirit is at work in human history and has been the guarantee that the Church will not teach error or be mislead, even when it comes to the Scriptures handed on to us.


That isn't what Scripture says, but if you don't think Scripture is anything more than a propaganda piece then you can make any statement you want.


My answer to this one was my explanation of how "good' and "godly" are the same in older English, thus making it false that we are not called to be like Christ. "Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" seems to ring some bells here for me. Or St. Seraphim of Sarov's statement that the aim of the Christian life is "the acquisition of the Holy Spirit of God" and that all our spiritual and ascetic efforts are aimed in that direction.

BTW, had an email from a priest friend in the Latin Church who says that while some of these "kernels" might be worth a look, the "whole ear" is "in grave peril."

I am probably going to regret this but for the sake of advancing the discussion, I would like to point out that at least some of these statements are quite compatible with eastern catholic/orthodox perspectives. Of course, some of them are beyond the pale ... But (once again, for the sake of advancing the discussion), let me offer some thoughts on the ones that can be redeemed.


A lot depends on the meaning of the word "embrace". If "embrace" means "accept as normative" I agree that this is heretical. But if "embrace" means what St John means in 1 John 1:8, 10 and then is followed by an instruction to follow the advice of verse 9, it would be perfectly orthodox. This could be a strong critique of a perverse pride that denies sin in a person's life. This statement also matches the words of the funeral service: "There is no one without sin but you alone ..." In other words, part of true honesty with oneself means accepting that I will never be perfect in this life, that I will never fully eradicate sin in my life, that in fact sin is much more than simply wrong deeds, but is a perverted orientation that lies at the very heart of my being. It is precisely because "sin is part of who I am" that I need Christ. To "embrace" my sin therefore means to be honest with myself and others that I need a redeemer, to stop pretending that I am perfect, etc.


The problem here is with the word "merely". What is meant by this word? The reality is that no one does know what Jesus said. Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the Gospels are in Greek. Therefore, the Gospels are a translation of what Jesus said. And, since (as the Gospel of John makes clear) it would be impossible to record everything Jesus said or did, obviously the Gospel writers chose to translate Jesus' words for particular communities in a particular time and place. To fully analyze this statement, one would have to know the context in which the words were spoken and understand the intent.


Again, the question is the use of the word "merely." In reality, no one did see Jesus actually rise from the dead. But they did see the Risen Jesus in the flesh with their own eyes. If this quote is meant to deny that, then it is beyond the pale. But if it is an attempt to move the discussion past the debate over history and to the meaning of the event it might be appropriate. This could be an over-reaction to a fundamentalist insistence on the fact of the resurrection without a deep understanding of its central importance in the Christian faith. (I am reminded here of Barth's comment to a woman who asked him if he believed the serpent really talked to Eve. He responded by saying that it was more important to pay attention to what the serpent said rather than get caught up in the discussion of how he said it.)


This is the one that I think could be the most in keeping with the eastern catholic/orthodox spiritual tradition. Since I have been immersed in the writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos, this one sounds almost like it came from our tradition.

It has always seemed to me that our liturgical and spiritual tradition places much less emphasis on the promise of a future state in which disembodied souls rejoice in "heaven" and much more emphasis on the relationship one has can have with Christ now (i.e., the fathers insistence that heaven is open to us now) and on the central promise of the bodily resurrection after the 2nd Coming. It is precisely this future resurrection that is most lacking from most discussions of the Gospel today. Yet, this promise of bodily resurrection, according to St Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, is absolutely central to the Gospel.



This actually sounds like something that comes out of the spiritual teachings of St. John of San Francisco who (according to my friends who knew him) often stressed that the Christian is not called to be "good" but to be "holy". In fact, as Fr Seraphim Rose wrote, often saints are not very "good" at all. They are holy but their holiness transcends our cultural categories of "good" and "bad" as the saint lives above the law and transcends the limitations of the law in her own person.


This too can be understood in a very eastern catholic/orthodox perspective. The idea that "heaven" is above us and "hell" below us, as Fr. David Petras wrote in this edition of the Horizons, must not be taken literally. See also the writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos. I would think that all Christians would agree that Jesus is "heaven" and that He "is all the heaven we're ever going to get." As the psalmist said, "In your presence is fullness of joy." Also, as John the Seer foresaw: "They shall see his face and his name shall be in their foreheads. ANd there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun, for hte Lord God gives them light and they shall reign for ever."

In summary, everything depends on context. I usually prefer to try to see the good in things that people say and try to hear the truth that often lies hidden by poor word choice, etc. But perhaps I am a bit pollyannish!

You hit this one right.


This was denied.


Not holy either.

"(M)erely" means "simply" in the sense that anything else is not true.

I should tell you that we've been hurrying down a New Age road for the past six years and this is but a small sampling of things I've collected over that time span. They are not taken out of context. There is almost nothing in traditional doctrine that does not come with that little twist in it that "clunks" in one's head. It's a little like hearing your car hum along and then hear some "clunk" in the motor that just shakes the whole functioning of the vehicle. The presentations are made in such a way that confusion as to what the Church teaches remains as the one lesson repeated over and over. Everything is up to interpretation and every opinion is as good as the next. There is no authority to define anything as absolute and requiring belief.