I started this post right at the start of Lent and then didn't finish it, and was going to trash it, but due to a late Lent event, I'm picking it back up.
The United States and Canada are Protestant nations. They don't really notice it as a rule, and quite a few cultural Protestants like to deny it, but if you are an adherent member of an Apostolic Christian religion, or for that matter probably if you are Jewish or Muslim, you'll definitely notice it.
One of the ways that it oddly comes up is the annual "it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that you can't eat fish on Fridays" discussion that Protestants in particular, and some very weakly evangelized lapsed Catholics, like to have. It's ironic as some of the same people will insist that grape juice was served at The Last Supper (nope, definitely wine) or that the Bible says once you accept Jesus into your heart you can go back to sinning (nope, St. Paul in particular warns you can do that and still go to Hell).
Of course, it doesn't say that you must abstain from meat on Fridays. It's a law of the Church, not biblically imposed. The Bible discusses fasting and gives lots of examples, and it left the office of Bishops to bind and loose. This is a rule of the Church, which has been bound.
It only applies to members of individual Churches. I.e, Catholics are bound, not Lutherans, or members of make it up as you go Christian churches. Moral laws bind everyone. Church laws bind the members of the church.
Also, FWIW, fasting and abstention from meat go way back in Church history and used to be much stricter as a practice than it is now. It's still much stricter in the Eastern churches. In the East, fasting involves abstention from alcohol, eggs, dairy, fish, meat, and olive oil for the 40 days of Great Lent and Holy Week. So the Orthodox, for example, are really down to a very bland menu at this point.
That group of people who like to claim that the Latin Rite practice was made up to support the fishing industry are really out to lunch on this one, particularly as the claim is based on a grossly misconstrued concept of what the food economy was like in the ancient world. If you lived, for example, in a Sardinian fishing town in the Middle Ages, fish is what was for dinner every night. The fishing industry didn't really need anyone's help to be economically viable. And at one time the Latin Rite fast more closely resembled the Eastern one. Claims like that are generally myths of the Reformation, created in jolly old England to justify carrying on with the Reformation when they couldn't come up with any actual good reasons to do so.
For most non-Catholics and non-Orthodox, however, this isn't in the forefront of people's minds. Restaurants get it, as there are a lot of us, which is why fish based fare shows up this time of year darned near everywhere. But rank and file Protestants, particularly of the Christmas/Easter variety, really don't ponder this much. If you live in a state like Wyoming, that's really obvious, as we have very low religious observation here anyhow. There are a lot of Catholics, but we're a minority. Protestants who don't go to church often are no doubt the majority, followed by Protestants who go to the new "non-denominational" churches, which is to say the quasi Baptist, churches (there are no "non-denominational" churches). They can't be expected to know Canon Law.
When you go to a function of any kind during Lent, this becomes pretty obvious. "Here's your entrée". . will come the server, serving the beef sandwich between two slabs of beef served with beef fries.
Oh, well.
That you can't suspend this and just go to meatless on Saturday is something people don't grasp. "You can skip it this time". No, you can't. Violation of the rule is a mortal sin. That seems extreme to non-Catholics, and probably has for a long time, but by the same token we live in an era when a host of other mortal sins, the sexually and marital ones in particular, are ignored by even devout church going Protestants. If you can convince yourself, getting married for the third or fourth time doesn't mean that you are an adulterer, you can pretty easily convince yourself that eating a hamburger on Fridays in Lent is okay this one time. Indeed, in some odd ways, the logic isn't that much different. They both involve appetites and excuses.
This does make Catholics stick out, and the Orthodox even more, maybe. In some ways, as the Catholic Church has suspended so many of these rules, the fact that there are some remaining makes Catholics stick out all the more and, in turn, the few remaining rules offend people all the more. And that is in a way part of the point in the modern world. It sets us apart, and it should. Like those who appear with ashes on their forehead on Ash Wednesday, it's going to mark you.
This came to mind as when I got home last night, Long Suffering Spouse announced, "my mother proposed to have Easter Dinner this Friday. . ."
Eh?
Now, by way of an obvious point, we're clearly a "mixed" family. My side of the family is all Catholic. LSS's is all non-Catholic.
I don't know where the dinner suggestion stands right now, as LSS isn't saying, which means it must be in the air. She protested this as we have "town jobs" which means that a Friday gathering really isn't a viable option anyhow. And one of the things about being married to a Catholic means is that the Catholicism will start to be picked up by the non-Catholic party, no matter what.
Beyond that, however, under the current rules for Latin Rite Catholics, (and I'm sure for Eastern Rite Christians as well) on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, the fasting rules allow Catholics to eat only one full meal and two smaller meals which, combined, would not equal a single normal meal. We've already seen that the Eastern Rite is fasting by this point every day. Catholics may not eat meat on these two days, or on any Friday during Lent.
Now, I'm over 60 years old, which means the fasting rules no longer apply to me. As it is, however, that's my normal daily routine anyhow. I never eat big breakfasts or lunch. I used to often skip both, but thanks to my thyroid medication, I'm hungrier than I used to be. Be that as it may, I'm not comfortable with a feast on Good Friday. That's weird, from an Apostolic Christian prospective. "This is the day our savior was murdered. . . let's just skip ahead to the day he was raised".
You can't really do that.
Of course, in Cromwellian influenced Protestant America, you probably can. He wouldn't, as he didn't approve of observing things anyhow, but he so messed stuff up it's never recovered in the English speaking, non-Catholic, world. Another reason that they've had to hide his head.
Anyhow, I love my in-laws, who are great, but this is pretty much something I'm not going to be able to do. I can't go to a big Easter dinner on Good Friday and do something like, "wow, that ham looks great. . . I'll just have the mashed potatoes. . . thanks". The meatless rule still applies to me, and there's probably not going to be a giant cod for an "early" Easter dinner.
That would be weird.
Also weird is that on Good Friday, I have people trying to make appointments. Most law offices are closed on Good Friday. But most Americans work as Oliver Cromwell was a theologically deficient fun sucker and our Puritan heritage is ruining everything. Working to the grave is one thing that our Protestant founds in this country really gave to us, and it's one of the things that's really wrong with the culture. Now, I usually do work, but I've long looked forward to most of the office being out, and only working a partial day. And it gives me a chance to take Holy Saturday off.
I'm going to have to handle this today. In prior years I think I would have just said yes, to somebody wanting in, or "the office is closed". But instead I'm going to just say, the "office is closed for Good Friday".
I should note, if you look at the items linked in on this site, over on the right, in the general interest category, there are things from the right and the left. If you only looked at some of my posts, you would assume that I'm a flaming liberal, maybe even a progressive. If you look at others, you'd assume I'm a conservative (you wouldn't assume I'm a populist, and I'm not). That probably means that I'm something else entirely, and indeed my views span right and left.
A full reader of this blog would know that I'm a Catholic, however.
One thing that I think is obvious to serious observant Catholics, and likely observant Orthodox, is that this is a Protestant Country. It really is. That's different from a "Christian Country". It's Protestant. Even people who like to spout off that this country doesn't have a religious founding of some sort are, actually, some sort of cultural Protestant, by and large. It's pretty obvious if you are a dedicated member of one of the minority religions, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, etc. As Protestants live in a Protestant culture, they don't realize that the culture is Protestant. Indeed, one of the charming things about Americans in general is the belief that everyone all over the globe thinks just like we do.
To take it a step further, quite a few sort of adherent members of other faiths, or maybe just not really well-informed members of other faiths, are heavily Protestantized. So you'll find Catholics that have heavily Protestant views, for example.
The deeply Protestant culture of the country impacts almost everything about it, from our economics to our foreign policy. It may not be at all evident to average people, but an example of that can be found in the country's overall reaction to the two major ongoing wars being fought right now.
I've supported, as people here would note, the Israeli war against Hamas, which Hamas started. But to be brutally honest, a lot of American support for Israel comes from two sources. One is the country's Jewish population, which is actually quite small, but which has been historically influential since some point in the mid 20th Century. The other is due to Evangelical Christians who see the creation of the Jewish state in 1948 as a fulfillment of a promise in the book of Revelation, although they aren't the only Christian's, or perhaps individual Christians, to see that, that way. Evangelical Christians, however, tend to see Israel in absolutist terms and many see supporting Israel as a way to directly bring about the Second Coming. For its part, the Israeli government, which actually tends to be highly secular, has worked that pretty heavily over the years.
Catholics and the Orthodox have a much more nuanced view of this topic, however, as their relationship with the region goes all the way back. Apostolic Christians were present in the region since day one. Early on, Apostolic Christianity won many converts of the Jews in the region, but also of Arabs and other regional populations. Christianity, and by that we mean Apostolic Christianity, largely converted the entire region before the Arab conquests of the 5th and 6th Century brought in Islam, but even then huge populations of Christians, and again we mean Apostolic Christians, as that is all that there were, remained. What Protestants, not Apostolic Christians, termed the Crusade when they began to falsify history came about originally to try to protect the pilgrimage routes to the very region that is now being fought over. At least up until fairly recently, 10% of the Palestinian population remained Catholic, and to the north, Lebanon was, up until fairly recently, predominately so. Large populations of Orthodox Christians were also to be found. Israel, in its relationship with out of the region Christians, however, reaches out mostly to Evangelical Christians who are pretty much completely foreign to the region.
The English Colonies were of course colonized by residents of Great Britain, who were, at the time they began to do that, Protestants. They were not all members of the Church of England or the Church of Scotland, however, and that very much has its ongoing impact today. Dissenters from the Protestant state churches, such as the "Pilgrims", took refuge in North America from whichever Protestant church was in control at the time, which was usually the Anglican Church in England, and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in Scotland. Immigrants from minority Protestant faiths didn't tend to have a concept of extending religious liberty in the New World, but rather escaping oppression for their minority views in the Old. Once in North America, they tended to be just as intolerant as the established churches they had escaped from. The one thing they could all agree on, however, is that they hated Catholics.
That was in large part because the English Protestant churches of all types had to rely on myths to justify their existence. The Church of England hadn't even really intended to separate long from the Catholic Church at first, but once things got rolling, it was hard to go back. This was for a variety of reasons, and to at least some degree the Church of England remains uncomfortable with its separation. It's made several attempts towards reversing it, and some significant sections of it basically pretend it didn't occur to a certain degree. But an early feature of it was an attempt to justify what it had done, which it never really came up with a good thesis for. Part of that simply devolved to creating a mythical history of Medieval Catholicism, a different approach than that taken by the norther European principalities that followed Luther, who also didn't mean to really separate at first.
Over time, the mythical history of the Medieval Church that the English created passed away in the UK itself. Brave Catholic remnants hung on, and the fact that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom always meant that the fables had objections to them. But in the English colonial experiments in North America, this was largely untrue. Immigrants to the colonies were overwhelmingly Protestant, if in some areas not overwhelmingly Anglican. Fables developed during the Reformation were carried over and instituted into the telling of American history and into American culture, which is why even now students at higher levels will hear stories of bloody Inquisitions and naked aggression in the Middle East that are simply untrue.
Part of the fable is that the country has always been supportive of "freedom of religion" and even that this is enshrined in the Constitution. It isn't, and it hasn't been.
At the time of the Revolution, almost all American colonist were Protestants. Certainly exceptions existed, but Catholics were a distinct minority and members of other religions, such as Judaism, were nearly non-existent. A significant exception had been Africans brought over as slaves prior to the 1700s, but during the 1700s they largely converted to Protestant faiths, reflecting the religion of where they were held, although often not the same varieties, exactly, of Protestantism of those who held them in bondage. Certainly slaves when first brought over, which was still occurring at the time of the Revolution irrespective of its illegality, were members of African animist religions by and large. About 1/3d were Muslim, however, and a few were Catholic. In terms of cultural myth, this is interesting in that it's commonly forgotten that most African slaves were animists at the time of their enslavement and also that the common excuse at the time that they would be introduced to Christianity actually wasn't true for all of them, some already being Christians. Be all of that as it may, the legacy of pre enslavement religions dissipated relatively rapidly, although some remnant of it remains even today in terms of folk beliefs.1
In 1776 when the nation rebelled against its Anglican monarch, King George III, most of the rebellious leaders in the Continental Congress were solidly Protestant. Indeed, one of the Intolerable Acts they passed as causi belli was the Quebec Act, which allowed the Québécois to remain Catholic, which says volumes about just how anti-Catholic the country was. A popular myth had developed that the founders of the republic and its constitution were largely non-Christian theists, but it's largely baloney. The article linked in above sort of adopts that view, without really fully expressing it, in order to avoid, most likely, that the Founders founded a Christian nation, or a Protestant one.
That aside, they certainly did found a theistic republic, and their early thoughts and documents are shot through with it. Nearly all of them, if not in fact all of them, believed in "natural law" which, as the article notes shows up in the Declaration of Independence, which states:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
And it goes on from there.
Okay, well so what?
Part of this is just historical. It's important to be accurate about a nation's history, and frankly the country was founded as a Protestant republic in which everyone, almost, was a Protestant. That was its culture, and to an enormous degree, it remains its culture today. Countries always have a culture, and beyond that, they deserve one.
But (and there's always a but), this also raises some important cultural, let alone, religious topics.
As to Protestants, one thing to keep in mind that while various Protestant denominations made up the majority of practice for Americans, there was not one single Protestant church and as the nation grew, this very much became the case. At the time of the Revolution, it would have been highly likely that almost everyone in a community in which any one person lived was the same type of Protestant. In Appalachians regions, for example, most were some type of Protestant. In New England, most were (although not all0 were likely Anglicans. There were Quakers and other sects of course, but people largely lived in a community in which everyone was a member of that sect, unless you were of a distinct minority community like Catholics and Jews.
As the country expanded, however, this began to change, a fact aided by the separation from the United Kingdom which now meant that immigrants from Norther Europe in general, rather than Great Britain in particular, were widely accepted.. European Protestant faiths that had not been in the country in large numbers began to come in, with no real opposition to that. Lutherans became very common in areas with large communities of Germans. Various Anabaptist groups, always present, likewise expanded and became very influential in some regions of the country, particularly the American South.
And into this distinctly American brands of Protestantism developed, something that Americans seem particularly ignorant of today. The "village preacher" or the church that was only loosely affiliated with a denomination became common.
Gather at the River in eight different John Ford films. Ford was a devout Catholic, and obviously saw this song as emblematic of American, and Protestant, Christianity. I've heard it in a Catholic Mass exactly once, in Pennsylvania.
This in fact became a feature of American life. Well into the 1980s, of course, most American towns were heavily represented by a wide variety of American Protestant churches, but almost all of them had what is now called "non-denominational" church headed up by a pastor who likely also worked five days out of seven in something else. That figure became such an iconic American that such pastors are portrayed again and again in American films, such as those noted above, but even in much more recent ones.
The fact that American Christianity became sufficiently separate from European Christianity mean that a sort of do it yourself Christianity took particularly strong root in the US, and also in Canada, in a way that it didn't elsewhere. Those who separated, for example, from the Russian Orthodox Church in Imperial Russia tended to become Old Believers, or even Catholics, although populations of refugee Anabaptists came into the country as well. You don't find big populations of minority in Protestant religions anywhere else, however, in North America, save for areas that American Protestants have sought to proselytize in, some of which are areas that are already heavily Catholic or Orthodox. Unique nearly wholly American strains of Protestantism, or religions that came out of Christianity, developed.
As this occured, it had an impact on the culture noted above, and still very much does. Demographers have wondered about the rise of the "nones", but in fact they've always been there. Rank and file Protestants have often not worried much about pew hopping. People baptized in a Baptist Church will go to an Assemblies of God Church, and not think much about it. Beyond that, a fairly large group of Americans feels that they are really God-fearing Christians, even though they very rarely go to Church. I've heard people who never darken the door of a church save for a funeral or wedding discuss in earnest terms how the country needs to turn back to its Christian values, and in fairness, some do in fact practice Christian virtues fairly notably.
As the same time, however, people who claim this sort of loose ill-defined American Christianity often have completely jettisoned huge tenants of actual Christianity. People will live together without being married or otherwise engage in conduct that any conventional strain of Christianity regards as gravely sinful. Divorce, specifically prohibited by Christ, is widely practiced by American Protestants who don't give it a second thought. In some ways, the easy practice of the very loose American Protestantism ranges from religion made very, very easy, to those denominations which have very strict rules that never actually appear in the New Testament, or Old, at all.
The Pine Tree Flag, one of the flags used by American revolutionaries during the war for independence. People can say what they like, but a rebel army flying a flag like this is not battling for a secular republic. Currently, this flag is associated with a group of far right wing Evangelicals of the New Apostolic Reformation who are inaccurately defined as Christian Nationalist, but who do share significant amounts of their goals including the restoration or imposition of a Christian, by which they really mean Evangelical Protestant superstructure on the country.
Into this mix, however, we now have the New Apostolic Reformation, a Protestant movement that is confused by commentators with Christian Nationalism and even sometimes confused at to its American Protestant status.
The New Apostolic Reformation comes out of that branch of American Protestantism that has the concept that the United States itself has a particular Devine mission. This sort of thinking has roots in American Protestantism that go fairly far back in the 19th Century, and it still is particularly strong in some branches of non-mainline, if that is a word, Protestantism, and also in Great Awakening religions that came out of Protestantism. The followers of such thoughts tend to believe, for example, that certain figures (often George Washington) were charged by a Devine mission at the time of the Revolution, and also tend to believe that the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired. You can find such thoughts today amongst various American Protestant religions outside of those which have retained strongly European roots, and also, as noted, as offshoots from Christianity. For example, you will sometimes hear the words common to the belief quoted by some Mormons, although it is not a tenant of the Mormon faith itself.
It was partially this line of thought that gave rise to the Manifest Destiny belief that many Americans held in the 19th Century, but it carried on until the 20th Century. Consider, for example, this 1900 statement after the US had taken the Philippines during the Spanish American War:
Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever, "territory belonging to the United States," as the Constitrltion calls them. And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. We will not repudiate our duty in the archipelago. We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient. We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. And we will move forward to our work, not howling out regrets like slaves whipped to their burdens, but with gratitude for a task worthy of our strength, and thanksgiving to Almighty God that He has marked us as His chosen people, henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world.
* * *
Mr. President, this question is deeper than any question of party politics: deeper than any question of the isolated policy of our country even; deeper even than any question of constitutional power. It is elemental. It is racial. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing hut vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration. No! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns. He has given its the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth. He has made us adepts in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples. Were it not for such a force as this the world would relapse into barbarism and night. And of all our race He has marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the regeneration of the world. This is the divine mission of America, and it holds for us all the profit, all the glory, all the happiness possible to man. We are trustees of the world's progress, guardians of its righteous peace. The judgment of the Master is upon us: "Ye have been faithful over a few things; I will make you ruler over many thing."
From Congressional Record(56th Cong., 1st Session) Vol XXXIII, pp.705, 711.
The concept of the US as a New Testament "chosen people" remains surprisingly strong in some quarters of American Protestantism.
The New Apostolic Reformation, faced with a United States of the early 21st Century in which the openly strong Protestant connections are now highly muted in many places, have taken this one step further than most did in the past and openly seek to establish a new wing of Protestantism which advocates for the "restoration" of perceived "lost offices" of what they conceive to have been, inaccurately, in the early Church, such as prophet and apostle. There were indeed, of course, prophets in Judaism. And there were apostles during the Apostolic Age. Indeed, as a distinctly Protestant movement, it ironically fails to grasp that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are true Apostolic Churches, and they were founded by the apostles. Restoring the "office" of apostle is not possible, as the Apostolic Age is over and Apostolic revelation fixed, something acknowledged not only by the Apostolic Churches, but also those churches of the Protestant Reformation which arose during the Reformation, the latter of which differ on that point from the Apostolic Churches only in regard to their relationship to the Apostles.
The NAR has been particularly associated with current strains of Trumpist populism, and in a vague sort of way helps to explain what is going on. As American Protestantism outside the mainline Protestant churches has always had sort of a "do it yourself" aspect to it, it's free to conceive of a mission like the NAR's while also free to ignore vast tracks of actual Christian doctrine. Looked at that way, the NAR doesn't, at least for the time being, need to worry itself about divorce and remarriage as antithetical to Christianity, or even the requirement that Christians be their brother's keeper. Rather, the thought is, that is, by some, that political success can be achieved, after which a society modeled in their view of Christianity can be imposed from the top down.
In this fashion, the life of a figure like Donald Trump can be flat out ignored in pursuit of what is imagined to be a greater goal, which is distinctly different from the view of some other Christians that they must vote for Trump as they have no other moral choice. Looked at this way, Trump becomes some sort of latter day Cyrus the Great, a non congregant being used by God to achieve a greater goal. It's a radical belief, but it is out there.
Speaker of the House Johnson flies the Pine Tree flag outside of his Congressional office.
The flag of Vatican City. This flag can occasionally be found in Catholic Churches. I can recall at one time a point at which American flags, which also occasionally could be found in Catholic Churches in the US, were removed.
An oddity in the US is that the largest single religion in the United States is a minority religion, that being Catholicism. Most Americans are Protestants, but the single biggest faith is the Catholic faith. And contrary to what some like to suggest, not only are Catholic numbers holding their own, but they're growing. At the same time this is occurring, moreover, the second "lung" of the Church, Orthodoxy, is expanding as well.
Because this is such a Protestant country in culture and outlook, one of the things about at least a lot of Catholics in the US is that they were heavily Protestantized, something that really took off once JFK told the country he could be a Catholic on Sundays, but the country didn't really need to worry about that for the rest of the week. A disaster for Catholics, Catholics rushed to acclimate and went from being seen as vaguely strange and threatening to the rest of the country to being just one denomination. At the same time that this occured, actual reforms in the Church, combined with the "Spirit of Vatican Two" in fact made Catholics seem that way to many "main line" Protestants and also to many rank and file Catholics. Many distinctly Catholic practices that had deeply inserted themselves into Catholic culture disappeared. Catholics Masses were now in English (most places) or Spanish in some. Catholics no longer were bound to eating fish as a penitential observance on Fridays outside of Lent. Distinctive female head coverings started to disappear (prior to Vatican II, we'd note). Unique accordance of respect in a formal way towards Priests ended. A fairly uniform Catholic education ended (one that I hadn't participated in, nor had my father). A weak 1970 Catechetical set of instruction came in, leading to an entire generation, of which I am part, hardly knowing the ins and outs of their Faith by the time they passed through it.
By the 80s and 90s, members of the Church who would never have thought of marrying in a Protestant Church or church shopping were doing so. Divorce and remarriage, something long common in the Protestant churches, also came in.
In some ways, it's now easy, retrospectively, to see how this came about. A lot of this was due to what might be regarded as cultural shell shock, or as one sociologist put it in a different context, "future shock". A generally disdained people for the most part, in much of the country Catholics kept to themselves and lived in "Catholic Ghettos" where their cultural uniqueness wasn't open to the rest of the world up through the middle of the 20th Century. This was never wholly the case, of course, and there were always notable converts to Catholics who were out in the world. In the West, which always tended to break down distinctions, this was much less the case once people were outside of big cities, like Denver and Salt Lake.
Still, in that time period, most Catholics were also blue collar workers and very few, save for some in certain professional occupations, had attended university. Those that did often tried to attend a Catholic university, which in those days were really Catholic. So, in much of the country they worked blue collar jobs, if they were professional their clientele was Catholic as a rule, and they tended to live in Catholic Communities. This was true for the Orthodox as well. And it was also true for Jews. Indeed, in some ways, the overall situation of these communities resembled that of African Americans, all of whom were disdained by the Ku Klux Klan and other nativists.
World War Two started to massively erode this. For the first time large numbers of Catholics attended university and after the war, for the same reason, this continued on due to the GI Bill. The walls of the Catholic (and Orthodox) Ghettos began to come down. Vatican II came along and made institutional changes in the church. Separately, the Vatican change the liturgy to its current form, a definite improvement, and provided that it could be said in the vernacular. Bishops and Priests who assumed a certain directly from this began to expand on it, and a Catholic President came in and told Americans that Catholics were just like everyone else, something a lot of Americans rapidly embraced. Similar developments happened north of the border where the Church itself started the process of dismantling institutional control of large areas of Quebec society, which in turn developed into the Quiet Revolution.
Looking back now, lots of younger Catholics wonder why their grandparents allowed so much to erode. Why did they allow the incidents of Catholic culture to fade? Why did they put up with taking out the altar rails? Why wasn't some Latin retained? Why did the parishioners not balk when the Bishops lift year around penitential meatless Fridays? The shock of it all seems like a likely answer. Having gone from heavily Irish, or German, or Italian communities and practicing a religion that practically had its own language, and that meaning that your future in the larger, Protestant, American society was at least partially laid out for you, and limited, to one in which they were told that they were fully part of the larger consumerist limitless American society where the rules only loosely applied, and then having part of the old culture simply destroyed, they were shell shocked.
Try as the American Church of hte 70s might, the fact of the matter is that CAtholic's remain stubbornly subject to the letter to Diogentus:
Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life. Their teaching is not based upon reveries inspired by the curiosity of men. Unlike some other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign.
And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives.
They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all men, but all men persecute them. Condemned because they are not understood, they are put to death, but raised to life again. They live in poverty, but enrich many; they are totally destitute, but possess an abundance of everything. They suffer dishonor, but that is their glory. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they, rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life. They are attacked by the Jews as aliens, they are persecuted by the Greeks, yet no one can explain the reason for this hatred.
To speak in general terms, we may say that the Christian is to the world what the soul is to the body. As the soul is present in every part of the body, while remaining distinct from it, so Christians are found in all the cities of the world, but cannot be identified with the world. As the visible body contains the invisible soul, so Christians are seen living in the world, but their religious life remains unseen. The body hates the soul and wars against it, not because of any injury the soul has done it, but because of the restriction the soul places on its pleasures. Similarly, the world hates the Christians, not because they have done it any wrong, but because they are opposed to its enjoyments.
Christians love those who hate them just as the soul loves the body and all its members despite the body's hatred. It is by the soul, enclosed within the body, that the body is held together, and similarly, it is by the Christians, detained in the world as in a prison, that the world is held together. The soul, though immortal, has a mortal dwelling place; and Christians also live for a time amidst perishable things, while awaiting the freedom from change and decay that will be theirs in heaven. As the soul benefits from the deprivation of food and drink, so Christians flourish under persecution. Such is the Christian’s lofty and divinely appointed function, from which he is not permitted to excuse himself.
In other words, Catholics that came up after the 80s looked at what the World had given to accommodating Catholics of the late 60s, 70s, and 80s, and found it wholly wanting. Like topics, we're otherwise writing on in slow motion, tradition, which turns out to be grounded in something real, and there's an effort to take it back. As that's being done, it's the case that the reforms that came in are being rejected, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.
Trad girls in conservative skirts and wearing chapel veils, young men fairly conservatively dressed, parishioners attempting to secure Latin Masses, or going to Easter Rite Devine Liturgy, aren't seeking to reform the reform, which up until recently was the vanguard of a return to tradition. They're seeking to wholesale bring the incidents of Catholicism back in. In doing that, they're making it plain that they're not just another denomination, and they don't want to really be part of the American religious scene. Whether they're applying the Benedict Option or the Constantine one, they're not only not melting in, they're returning to wholesale different. And that different doesn't look back to 1776, it looks all the way back.
So why does any of this matter?
Cyrus the Great. Some far right Evangelicals tend to see Trump as a sort of Cyrus figure. Cyrus was not Jewish, but his proclimations favored the Jewish faith in an existential sense.
Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying: 'Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD, the God of heaven, given me; and He hath charged me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whosoever there is among you of all His people—his God be with him—let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD, the God of Israel, He is the God who is in Jerusalem. And whosoever is left, in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill-offering for the house of God which is in Jerusalem.'
Ezra 1:1–4
Well, it does, for a variety of reasons, some mild, and some a bit scary.
One thing is this. It used to be particularly noted by some that the English-speaking world was particularly given to democracy, which it was. Those with a limited horizon tended to associate this solely with the United States, but that was in fact extremely inaccurate. The United Kingdom had a functioning parliament in 1776 when we abandoned the UK's overlordship, and in fact that is part of the reason that we did that. They had a Parliament, and they weren't letting us in.
A person can say what they want about that and try to disassociate it somehow from something particularly English, but it is there. France, in 1776, wasn't democratic. Spain wasn't either. You can't really find another major power that was. And all of England's progeny took this path for a long time. Canada never had a non-democratic moment. Nor did New Zealand, or Australia.
Now, English democracy was not perfect, and the franchise was not even particularly large. Major classes were completely excluded based on economic, and also in the case of Catholics, religion. But it was there and that heritage was conveyed. Moreover, when it took root in North America, it expanded beyond what it had been in the UK pretty rapidly.
Which leads us to a more radical proposition.
What was also conveyed early on was a certain culture, and part of that was a political culture. The overall culture, however, was Protestant. And it remains so. It's so Protestant that even the atheists are culturally Protestant.
An essential element of that American Protestantism is the concept of "I can make up my mind for myself and nobody can tell me what to do". Lots of religious "reformers" in the US have done that, but that's a Protestant thing. To Protestants, it's not strange to hop from one Protestant denomination to another, and to even include denominations that claim to have no denomination, even though the they do. Catholics and Jews, on the other hand, are part of one, big, global, faith. Moving from parish to parish, for Catholics, is no big deal, as Catholicism is the Church. But going to another denomination is an extraordinarily radical move and an act of rebellion.
Democracy, of course, as a movement has spread well beyond the English-speaking world and indeed, there were democracies that spring up in various places in the non Protestant world, as for in example Italian city states. Antiquarians will point out the example of ancient Athens, or even Germanic and Nordic raiding bands. On the last item, all people are democratic at the tribal level, pretty much. None of this really counters the point, however.
This brings us to the next reason this is important. The most recent movement, which is threading through American Evangelicalism, is radically exclusionary in a way, and this too is part of the North American religious heritage.
It wasn't until after the Civil War that American society really started to view Catholics as suitable citizens,a and then only reluctantly. The huge Irish and German immigrant populations that fought in the war made Catholics impossible to really ignore. Jewish Americans were really small in number, but they started to be accepted, very reluctantly, about the same time. As this occured the word "Judeo-Christian" was invented to include everyone then in the country in a singular larger American Christian sort of world. But the fact remains that hostility towards both religions, and more recently Islam, has been an ongoing feature of American life.
Catholics, and if there are any, Jews and Muslims (the latter two unlikely in any numbers) flirting with the new concepts of Christian Nationalism and National Conservatism really need to do so at their caution. The New Apostolic Reformation forces may have a similar view on moral matters as mainstream and conservative Catholics do, but the NAR is definitely not Catholic. And the history for Americans of general of politics and religion being welded together, and indeed coopting each other, is not a comfortable one at all. Put another way, Donald Trump is not a deeply religious, or even moral, man, and there's no real reason to believe that he's some sort of Cyrus the Great.
But some clearly see him that way, explaining their actions, and even some of the odd propoganda in the Trumpist camp.
None of this is to say that faith shouldn't inform a person's politics. It should. But they are not the same thing.
Footnotes:
1. Native Americans of course had their own religions, but what was different about their history, up until the early 20th Century, is that unless highly assimilated, they weren't "Americans" at all. It wasn't until 1924, a date which our 100 year retrospective posts haven't even yet reached, that all Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship.
This has, I guess, turned into a post on the Synod on Synodality.
The Synod on Synodality is a three-year process of listening and dialogue beginning with a solemn opening in Rome on October 9 and 10, 2021 with each individual diocese and church celebrating the following week on October 17. The synodal process will conclude in 2024.
Pope Francis invites the entire Church to reflect on a theme that is decisive for its life and mission: “It is precisely this path of synodality which God expects of the Church of the third millennium.” This journey, which follows in the wake of the Church’s “renewal” proposed by the Second Vatican Council, is both a gift and a task: by journeying together and reflecting together on the journey that has been made, the Church will be able to learn through Her experience which processes can help Her to live communion, to achieve participation, to open Herself to mission."
United States Council of Catholic Bishops.
I am, if the truth be told, in such a tone of mind that I shun every assemblage of bishops, because I have never yet seen that any Synod had a good ending, or that the evils complained of were removed by them, but were rather multiplied….
St. Gregory of Nazianzus writing to Procopius in 382.
Originally, when I started this post, I was going to post Bishop Strickland's letter to his flock, and then held back on it as it generated so much controversy, from this already controversial Bishop, whom I don't know much about, that I thought better of it. Immediately, the terms schism and the like came in.
Then two things occured, followed by a third.
The first was a weekend homily from our young priest on the principal reading for August 27, which was:
Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and he asked his disciples,
"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter said in reply,
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus said to him in reply,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
Mathew, Chapter 16.
This is one of the most important Gospel readings in the New Testament, as in it, Christ gives the keys to St. Peter, the first Pope.
In his homily, without referencing Bishop Strickland or the Pope at all, the young priest stated that the Catholic Church was the only thing holding back the destruction of the culture in the United States. That's a big claim, but frankly, correctly understood, he may be very well correct.
Another thing, which I learned of after Sunday, was that the Pope spoke to a group of young Jesuits in Portugal, where he was asked as series of question. He's been quoted in part (but largely only in part) regarding one question, which was about the Faith in the United States. As is so often the case with Francis, he was not quoted in full, or fully in context.
The question, and his answer, were:
Q. Pope Francis, I would like to ask you a question as a religious brother. I am Francisco. Last year I spent a sabbatical year in the United States. There was one thing that made a great impression on me there, and at times made me suffer. I saw many, even bishops, criticizing your leadership of the Church. And many even accuse the Jesuits, who are usually a kind of critical resource of the pope, of not being so now. They would even like the Jesuits to criticize you explicitly. Do you miss the criticism that the Jesuits used to make of the pope, the Magisterium, the Vatican?
A. You have seen that in the United States the situation is not easy: there is a very strong reactionary attitude. It is organized and shapes the way people belong, even emotionally. I would like to remind those people that indietrismo (being backward-looking) is useless and we need to understand that there is an appropriate evolution in the understanding of matters of faith and morals as long as we follow the three criteria that Vincent of Lérins already indicated in the fifth century: doctrine evolves ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate. In other words, doctrine also progresses, expands and consolidates with time and becomes firmer, but is always progressing. Change develops from the roots upward, growing in accord with these three criteria.
Let us get to specifics. Today it is a sin to possess atomic bombs; the death penalty is a sin. You cannot employ it, but it was not so before. As for slavery, some pontiffs before me tolerated it, but things are different today. So you change, you change, but with the criteria just mentioned. I like to use the “upward” image, that is, ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate. Always on this path, starting from the root with sap that flows up and up, and that is why change is necessary.
Vincent of Lérins makes the comparison between human biological development and the transmission from one age to another of the depositum fidei, which grows and is consolidated with the passage of time. Here, our understanding of the human person changes with time, and our consciousness also deepens. The other sciences and their evolution also help the Church in this growth in understanding. The view of Church doctrine as monolithic is erroneous.
But some people opt out; they go backward; they are what I call “indietristi.” When you go backward, you form something closed, disconnected from the roots of the Church and you lose the sap of revelation. If you don’t change upward, you go backward, and then you take on criteria for change other than those our faith gives for growth and change. And the effects on morality are devastating. The problems that moralists have to examine today are very serious, and to deal with them they have to take the risk of making changes, but in the direction I was saying.
You have been to the United States and you say you have felt a climate of closure. Yes, this climate can be experienced in some situations. And there you can lose the true tradition and turn to ideologies for support. In other words, ideology replaces faith, membership of a sector of the Church replaces membership of the Church.
I want to pay tribute to Arrupe’s courage. When he became superior general, he found a Society of Jesus that was, so to speak, bogged down. General Ledóchowski had drafted the Epitome – do you young people know what the Epitome is? No? Nothing remains of the Epitome! It was a selection of the Constitutions and Rules, all mixed up. But Ledóchowski, who was very orderly, with the mentality of the time, said, “I am compiling it so that the Jesuits will be fully clear about everything they have to do.” And the first specimen he sent to a Benedictine abbot in Rome, a great friend of his, who replied with a note: “You have killed the Society with this.”
In other words, the Society of the Epitome was formed, the Society that I experienced in the novitiate, albeit with great teachers who were of great help, but some taught certain things that fossilized the Society. That was the spirituality that Arrupe received, and he had the courage to set it moving again. Some things got out of hand, as is inevitable, such as the question of the Marxist analysis of reality. Then he had to clarify some matters, but he was a man who was able to look forward. And with what tools did Arrupe confront reality? With the Spiritual Exercises. In 1969 he founded the Ignatian Center for Spirituality. The secretary of this center, Fr. Luís Gonzalez Hernandez, was given the tasks of traveling around the world to give the Exercises and to open this new panorama.
You younger ones have not experienced these tensions, but what you say about some sectors in the United States reminds me of what we have already experienced with the Epitome, which generated a mentality that was all rigid and contorted. Those American groups you talk about, so closed, are isolating themselves. Instead of living by doctrine, by the true doctrine that always develops and bears fruit, they live by ideologies. When you abandon doctrine in life to replace it with an ideology, you have lost, you have lost as in war.
The Pope, who seems to get caught off guard with his comments relatively frequently, is trying to move past this one right now. This was sort of accidentally helped when he made a comment praising Russian imperial rulers, which may have been taken out of context, but which was bad timing. That brought a disappointed comment from the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Indeed, Ukrainian Catholics have been loyal to Rome in spite of persecution both by the Communist in the USSR and historically by the Russian Orthodox Church. Imperial Russia, after the schism, was not a friendly place for Catholicism.
Now, frankly, the Pope's comments overall regarding the US, which have been extracted down to just a few lines, are not nearly as incendiary as they're being portrayed. But Pope Francis has a tendency to speak without a lack of clarity, as well as offhand. His comments caused some very orthodox and mainstream American Catholic apologist to ask "who are you speaking of"" and it frankly isn't very clear.
There's an enormous fear right now that Francis is going to follow the wayward German bishops into destruction. I don't think he will, and he likely knows that if that were to be attempted, which I don't believe he wants to attempt anyhow, it will cause a schism in the church. Added to that, for devout, orthodox and believing Catholics, the Church cannot be lead into error due to the protection of the Holy Spirit, so a lot of the criticism shows a certain element of disblief.
That doesn't mean, however, that Pope Francis must be viewed as a great Pope.
Right now American, and other conservative, Catholics are routinely mentioning schism as a fear, and while its hardly noticed here, the Eastern Rite Catholic Syro-Malabar Church is in outright defiance of Rome, and darned near in schism, over an issue in their liturgy that didn't need to become one and which Pope Francis has elevated to the level of a contest between their clergy and him. It recalls, in serious ways, the issues that partially gave rise to the Great Schism, or the separation of some Eastern Rite Catholics from the Roman Catholic Church and into the Russian Orthodox Church about a centuray ago, and is something we truly don't need. Rome should back off.
All of this now comes in the context of the Synod on Synodality.
More than a few rank and file loyal Catholics are pretty skeptical on the Synod on Synodality. Indeed, I suspect, without knowing, that part of the Syro-Malabar Church crisis is due to this as well. The Eastern Churches are famously dedicated to tradition, and the Vatican has been upsetting that, and then retreating from the upset, and then upsetting it again, since 1965. Added to that, anyone who has ever sat on a Parish Council probably is, as so often the people drawn to such matters in terms of organizing them, and this Synod involves laity, are the people who have time to do it. That doesn't tend to be the busy Catholic orthodox businessman, or the highly educated Catholic lawyer or engineer. It tends to be older people who formed their views in the 1970s on the left and who are massively out of touch with the young people in the pews, or at least older people. The Catholics that Trads like to point to, the young couples with children at a Latin Mass, aren't likely to have time to attend synods.
Maybe the laity delegation will be different here, but if it omits the orthodox, Trads, and the Rad Trads to any significant degree, there's reason to fear that it'll be made up of let wing Catholics who often have all kids of complaints about the Catholic Church, or so many orthodox, conservatives, and Trads (and they aren't all the same thing) fear.
These fears amplified a great deal are what caused highly traditional Bishop Joseph Strickland, much in the news recently, to issue his recent letter, which read:
August 22, 2023
My Dear Sons and Daughters in Christ:
May the love and grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be upon you always!
In this time of great turmoil in the Church and in the world, I must speak to you from a father’s heart in order to warn you of the evils that threaten us, and to assure you of the joy and hope that we have always in our Lord Jesus Christ. The evil and false message that has invaded the Church, Christ’s Bride, is that Jesus is only one among many, and that it is not necessary for His message to be shared with all humanity. This idea must be shunned and refuted at every turn. We must share the joyful good news that Jesus is our only Lord, and that He desires that all humanity for all time may embrace eternal life in Him.
Once we understand that Jesus Christ, God’s Divine Son, is the fullness of revelation and the fulfillment of the Father’s plan of salvation for all humanity for all time, and we embrace this with all our hearts, then we can address the other errors that plague our Church and our world which have been brought about by a departure from Truth.
In St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he writes: “I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by {the} grace {of Christ} for a different gospel {not that there is another}. But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach {to you} a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!” (Gal 1:6-9)
As your spiritual father, I feel it is important to reiterate the following basic truths that have always been understood by the Church from time immemorial, and to emphasize that the Church exists not to redefine matters of faith, but to safeguard the Deposit of Faith as it has been handed down to us from Our Lord Himself through the apostles and the saints and martyrs. Again, hearkening back to St. Paul’s warning to the Galatians, any attempts to pervert the true Gospel message must be categorically rejected as injurious to the Bride of Christ and her individual members.
Christ established One Church—the Catholic Church—and, therefore, only the Catholic Church provides the fullness of Christ’s truth and the authentic path to His salvation for all of us.
The Eucharist and all the sacraments are divinely instituted, not developed by man. The Eucharist is truly Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, and to receive Him in Communion unworthily (i.e. in a state of grave, unrepentant sin) is a devastating sacrilege for the individual and for the Church. (1 Cor 11:27-29)
The Sacrament of Matrimony is instituted by God. Through Natural Law, God has established marriage as between one man and one woman faithful to each other for life and open to children. Humanity has no right or true ability to redefine marriage.
Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, male or female, and all people should be helped to discover their true identities as children of God, and not supported in a disordered attempt to reject their undeniable biological and God-given identity.
Sexual activity outside marriage is always gravely sinful and cannot be condoned, blessed, or deemed permissible by any authority inside the Church.
The belief that all men and women will be saved regardless of how they live their lives (a concept commonly referred to as universalism) is false and is dangerous, as it contradicts what Jesus tells us repeatedly in the Gospel. Jesus says we must “deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him.” (Matt 16:24) He has given us the way, through His grace, to victory over sin and death through repentance and sacramental confession. It is essential that we embrace the joy and hope, as well as the freedom, that come from repentance and humbly confessing our sins. Through repentance and sacramental confession, every battle with temptation and sin can be a small victory that leads us to embrace the great victory that Christ has won for us.
In order to follow Jesus Christ, we must willingly choose to take up our cross instead of attempting to avoid the cross and suffering that Our Lord offers to each of us individually in our daily lives. The mystery of redemptive suffering—i.e. suffering that Our Lord allows us to experience and accept in this world and then offer back to Him in union with His suffering—humbles us, purifies us, and draws us deeper into the joy of a life lived in Christ. That is not to say that we must enjoy or seek out suffering, but if we are united to Christ, as we experience our daily sufferings we can find the hope and joy that exist amidst the suffering and persevere to the end in all our suffering. (cf. 2 Tim 4:6-8)
In the weeks and months ahead, many of these truths will be examined as part of the Synod on Synodality. We must hold fast to these truths and be wary of any attempts to present an alternative to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or to push for a faith that speaks of dialogue and brotherhood, while attempting to remove the fatherhood of God. When we seek to innovate upon what God in His great mercy has given us, we find ourselves upon treacherous ground. The surest footing we can find is to remain firmly upon the perennial teachings of the faith.
Regrettably, it may be that some will label as schismatics those who disagree with the changes being proposed. Be assured, however, that no one who remains firmly upon the plumb line of our Catholic faith is a schismatic. We must remain unabashedly and truly Catholic, regardless of what may be brought forth. We must be aware also that it is not leaving the Church to stand firm against these proposed changes. As St. Peter said, “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (Jn 6:68) Therefore, standing firm does not mean we are seeking to leave the Church. Instead, those who would propose changes to that which cannot be changed seek to commandeer Christ’s Church, and they are indeed the true schismatics.
I urge you, my sons and daughters in Christ, that now is the time to make sure you stand firmly upon the Catholic faith of the ages. We were all created to seek the Way, the Truth and the Life, and in this modern age of confusion, the true path is the one that is illuminated by the light of Jesus Christ, for Truth has a face and indeed it is His face. Be assured that He will not abandon His Bride.
I remain your humble father and servant,
Most Reverend Joseph E. Strickland
Bishop of Tyler
That's the letter as written. Let's break it down again, with some text in bold.
In this time of great turmoil in the Church and in the world, I must speak to you from a father’s heart in order to warn you of the evils that threaten us, and to assure you of the joy and hope that we have always in our Lord Jesus Christ. The evil and false message that has invaded the Church, Christ’s Bride, is that Jesus is only one among many, and that it is not necessary for His message to be shared with all humanity. This idea must be shunned and refuted at every turn. We must share the joyful good news that Jesus is our only Lord, and that He desires that all humanity for all time may embrace eternal life in Him.
Once we understand that Jesus Christ, God’s Divine Son, is the fullness of revelation and the fulfillment of the Father’s plan of salvation for all humanity for all time, and we embrace this with all our hearts, then we can address the other errors that plague our Church and our world which have been brought about by a departure from Truth.
In St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he writes: “I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by {the} grace {of Christ} for a different gospel {not that there is another}. But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach {to you} a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!” (Gal 1:6-9)
As your spiritual father, I feel it is important to reiterate the following basic truths that have always been understood by the Church from time immemorial, and to emphasize that the Church exists not to redefine matters of faith, but to safeguard the Deposit of Faith as it has been handed down to us from Our Lord Himself through the apostles and the saints and martyrs. Again, hearkening back to St. Paul’s warning to the Galatians, any attempts to pervert the true Gospel message must be categorically rejected as injurious to the Bride of Christ and her individual members.
Christ established One Church—the Catholic Church—and, therefore, only the Catholic Church provides the fullness of Christ’s truth and the authentic path to His salvation for all of us.
The Eucharist and all the sacraments are divinely instituted, not developed by man. The Eucharist is truly Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, and to receive Him in Communion unworthily (i.e. in a state of grave, unrepentant sin) is a devastating sacrilege for the individual and for the Church. (1 Cor 11:27-29)
The Sacrament of Matrimony is instituted by God. Through Natural Law, God has established marriage as between one man and one woman faithful to each other for life and open to children. Humanity has no right or true ability to redefine marriage.
Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, male or female, and all people should be helped to discover their true identities as children of God, and not supported in a disordered attempt to reject their undeniable biological and God-given identity.
Sexual activity outside marriage is always gravely sinful and cannot be condoned, blessed, or deemed permissible by any authority inside the Church.
The belief that all men and women will be saved regardless of how they live their lives (a concept commonly referred to as universalism) is false and is dangerous, as it contradicts what Jesus tells us repeatedly in the Gospel. Jesus says we must “deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him.” (Matt 16:24) He has given us the way, through His grace, to victory over sin and death through repentance and sacramental confession. It is essential that we embrace the joy and hope, as well as the freedom, that come from repentance and humbly confessing our sins. Through repentance and sacramental confession, every battle with temptation and sin can be a small victory that leads us to embrace the great victory that Christ has won for us.
In order to follow Jesus Christ, we must willingly choose to take up our cross instead of attempting to avoid the cross and suffering that Our Lord offers to each of us individually in our daily lives. The mystery of redemptive suffering—i.e. suffering that Our Lord allows us to experience and accept in this world and then offer back to Him in union with His suffering—humbles us, purifies us, and draws us deeper into the joy of a life lived in Christ. That is not to say that we must enjoy or seek out suffering, but if we are united to Christ, as we experience our daily sufferings we can find the hope and joy that exist amidst the suffering and persevere to the end in all our suffering. (cf. 2 Tim 4:6-8)
In the weeks and months ahead, many of these truths will be examined as part of the Synod on Synodality.We must hold fast to these truths and be wary of any attempts to present an alternative to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or to push for a faith that speaks of dialogue and brotherhood, while attempting to remove the fatherhood of God. When we seek to innovate upon what God in His great mercy has given us, we find ourselves upon treacherous ground. The surest footing we can find is to remain firmly upon the perennial teachings of the faith.
Regrettably, it may be that some will label as schismatics those who disagree with the changes being proposed. Be assured, however, that no one who remains firmly upon the plumb line of our Catholic faith is a schismatic. We must remain unabashedly and truly Catholic, regardless of what may be brought forth. We must be aware also that it is not leaving the Church to stand firm against these proposed changes. As St. Peter said, “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (Jn 6:68) Therefore, standing firm does not mean we are seeking to leave the Church. Instead, those who would propose changes to that which cannot be changed seek to commandeer Christ’s Church, and they are indeed the true schismatics.
I urge you, my sons and daughters in Christ, that now is the time to make sure you stand firmly upon the Catholic faith of the ages. We were all created to seek the Way, the Truth and the Life, and in this modern age of confusion, the true path is the one that is illuminated by the light of Jesus Christ, for Truth has a face and indeed it is His face. Be assured that He will not abandon His Bride.
Bold words.
But in large degree, Bishop Strickland is correct on the spirit of the times. That doesn't mean he can't be questioned on everything. He certainly can, and some of his other statements, including some regarding a radical traditionalist priest, and some regarding Pope Francis, would nearly require a loyal Catholic to hold some reservations about him.
Where we may start off with a bit of doubt is here. Has an "evil and false message. . . Invaded the Church, Christ’s Bride" and is it "that Jesus is only one among many, and that it is not necessary for His message to be shared with all humanity"? I'm not sure what the Bishop is referring too, but I don't see evidence of that inside the Church's structure or its clergy.
It's long been the case that the Church has held that salvation can only come through the Church, but we don't really know how that occurs, so those who are not Catholic may be saved. I don't think Bishop Strickland is questioning that, but it could be read that way.
Beyond that, Bishop Strickland is expressing fears that are widely held, and not without good reason. The German Bishops, presiding over a Church that's rich due to the Church tax but poor in terms of parishioners actually in the pews, is in fact expressing views that orthodox Catholics view as not only wrong, but immorally wrong. The fear is that they're going to bring their errors into the synod, the need for which is not largely appreciated.
Those fears may be misplaced, and I've written on that earlier. Declared doctrine cannot be changed, and there's no evidence that Pope Francis is going to attempt to do so. But Pope Francis' managerial style is simply maddening. Having come up in Argentina, which really only turned to democracy recently, he appears to be attempting to somewhat democratize the Church while not really grasping that the conveyance of clear information is a vital feature of that.
A potential result of the Synod may well be a correction of the errors of recent years in more liberal wings in a way that those liberals have to accept, or which will require them to go into outright schism. I basically expect that to occur, which is not the expectation that most are expecting. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, a very conservative, orthodox Priest who runs a significant blog, posted:
My view is that there are two, not three, possible outcomes for the Synod (“walking together”). They are a) it’ll fizzle into pointless posturing after which there will be a mainly yawn-inducing document with a couple of crowbar-inviting ambiguities or b) something disastrous will swiftly emerge out of a spirit of radical discontinuity.
What will not happen is c) sound, pastoral proposals will be brought to light based on a clear ecclesiology rooted in tradition.
He makes it plain that he expects number "b" to occur. Fr. Dwight Longnecker has more or less indicated that something less than "a" will occur in his view.
I frankly expect something more like "c".
We may, and I feel likely will be, surprised. But the Pope's words certainly aren't calculated to derive comfort for the loyal orthodox in the pews.
Indeed, and ironically, what the Pope might be seeking to achieve may be a necessary, or not, restructuring, which also not only brings risks, but is problematic due to the ongoing problem of the Boomers in control.
What the Pope has noted is that the Eastern Orthodox govern themselves through synods. There have come to be some doctrinal differences between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches, but they are not huge, and the East does have apostolic succession. What the Pope seems to admire is the individual synods those Churches have within themselves, and he might be aiming to establish them in the Catholic Church.
If that is the aim, and there is reason to think it is, it has a problem right off the bat in that the local synod for the Latin Rite would be one big synod. It would dwarf the largest of the Eastern synods. Maybe, however, he's thinking of more local synods and giving those local synods something that approaches autocephalous status. If that's the case, however, his recent actions in regard to the Syro-Malabar Church cut the other way. That doesn't mean it isn't the goal, however.
If that is the goal, however, it automatically has a problem in that the German Church, which is unfortunately supported by taxes, has already pretty much gone in another direction and, if it keeps heading that way, is going to disappear a law Episcopal Church. That pathway is so clear, with the Episcopal Church operating to take away crosses in much of its territory (although it had dissident portions that remain very traditional), that its lost its meaning and, at the same time, its members. If the German Church was seeking to address attendance, what it ought to do is support orthodoxy and demand that the Bundestag eliminate the Church Tax, which really is an unfair tax on average Germans.
What the Church Tax reveals, however, is the mentally lax way that many Catholics in Catholic countries view the Church. Southern Germany, which is where most German Catholics live, is pretty much all Catholic, but people have acclimated themselves to being Christmas and Easter Catholics and ignoring everything else, and still conceiving of themselves as good Catholics. In Catholic countries that have vast geographies, which includes most of South America, that's also the case. Even the clergy in these regions often takes that sort of view, not really challenging the faithful to live up to the Faith, and being comfortable with "we're all Catholic", as if that's enough.
St. Paul clearly stated it wasn't.
Pope Francis is an Argentine, and that's probably, as already noted, one of the problems here. The US, which he is criticizing, is a Protestant country, and to be a real Catholic here always meant to be part of a fighting faith.
Indeed, everywhere the Church as been strong in the last century, it's had to be a fighting faith. It was in the US, that was true in Ireland, and that was true in Southern Germany. The Catholic Church, with its adherence to the Faith, tends to suffer when times are really good and when there's little societal opposition to it.
There is a lot of societal opposition to it right now in the US, and it's been interesting to see the growing strength of orthodoxy in reaction to it.
Indeed, it's hard for American conservative Catholic not to feel, at some point, that the Pope is one of the group of at least somewhat liberal Catholic attacking them. An author in First Things, whose article postdates everything written in this essay above, put it well for a lot of them, and at least somewhat for myself, when he noted:
I am a “conservative” Catholic, but I am no traditionalist, in the TLM sense. I was deeply formed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and am committed to the Novus Ordo (the Mass of Vatican II). I embrace the universal call to holiness as developed during Vatican II. I love the Scriptures. I support the preferential option for the spiritually and materially poor. I view the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a north star for our faith. I think the Church has much to say to the modern world.
I also reject the notion that doctrine can change, as opposed to develop. I think certain actions are intrinsically evil. I do not think it is compassionate to affirm individuals in their sin. I think the Church’s tradition is a great spiritual treasure.
These things should be uncontroversial, and yet the impression the Holy Father creates is that to hold all of these positions is to be a rigid, backward-looking Catholic as opposed to one led by the Holy Spirit. He seems to think that the rock-solid belief many American Catholics have in the deposit of faith and the Church’s historical moral teachings is a rejection of authentic development of doctrine. But this portrayal is a cartoon.
Pope Francis notes that doctrine “progresses,” but that this “change develops from the roots upward, growing in accord with [St. Vincent Lerins’] three criteria [for authentic development articulated].” I don’t know a traditional Catholic who disagrees with this. But I do know many who vehemently disagree that the Vatican’s free-wheeling questioning of long-held teaching meets these criteria. Pope Francis oversees a curia where the Relator General for the Synod on Synodality claims the Church’s teaching about homosexual acts is “false,” where the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life endorses a book that calls for a complete reversal of the Church’s teaching on contraception, and where the head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith espouses an openness to blessings for same-sex couples—to name just a few recent examples of churchmen flatly opposing the authentic development espoused by the Holy Father. Meanwhile, Francis gives the Germans freedom to push heretical positions. And yet somehow, he brands as “backwards” the Catholics who dislike it when high-ranking Vatican prelates bandy about serious errors.
And for this reason, it's not surprising that many conservative Catholics, who weren't already at least somewhat lacking in enthusiasm for the upcoming synod, are losing their enthusiasm for it. That doesn't mean that there's going to be big doctrinal changes. There will not be. But it may mean that the results will either be surprising or that they will be disappointing.
Indeed, Catholics must recall that the Church is protected from error. So fears about the Synod are overdone. And not every change that is proposed is an attack on dogma, such as the often suggested lifting on married clerics.
But we also might remember that we're not promised that everyone who steps into the shoes of the Fisherman is promised to really well them well. They're still people. And Pope Francis, who is no doubt a holy man, is also a very old one in an age in which it seems that the world is full of old leaders whose vision often looks back to a liberalism of their youth, while the younger mass of humanity looks back to the best things that the same liberalism lost.
.svg.png)
_in_art.jpg)
