Shepherds and Stewards in the Son
April 26, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
In early April, the environmental group Earth Day Network sent a rather poorly written memo to parishes around the country. Signed by the likes of Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Shaquille O’ Neal and Ted Turner the thing read in part:
Earth Day Sunday is traditionally [sic] falls on the Sunday closest to Earth Day (April 22nd) . . . we would encourage you to also consider recognizing Earth Day Sunday during the entire month of April or on May 1st, 2011 as the plants begin to bloom and spring begins.
Putting aside Earth Day Network’s seeming unfamiliarity with the significance of March 21st on the Gregorian calendar (a few days later, on the Julian), the memo essentially encourages Catholic priests to use their religion to promote the quasi-religion of environmentalism, but without the reciprocal notes usually sounded among the ecumenists. Priests were invited to deliver “a homily or sermon on climate change and equitable sustainability. . .” (and submit the sermon to their website) or to “pledge to give one homily over the course of a year on climate change,” or—at the very least—to give the planet a shout-out in the parish bulletin.
A quick search at www.earthday.net yielded no submitted homilies. Certainly as Christians we are mindful of our stewardship of the earth, but given how busy most priests were in preparing for the arduous and triumphant liturgies of the Easter Triduum, I suspect this memo went unread or was quickly recycled at most parishes. The only reason you and I are even aware of it is because of a minor dust-up that occurred online, when Michael Voris of St. Michael’s Media got his hands on the memo and stormed, “If you find yourself in Mass on Easter Sunday and the priest even so much as breathes a word about Earth Day, throw nothing in the collection plate, finish your Sunday obligation and resign from that parish on Monday . . .”
Some online took issue with the pre-emptive nature of Voris’ rant. Advising the faithful to resign from a parish over homily-disgust might be an expedient demonstration of the politically minded, but is it the ideal way for Christians to behave toward each other? What builds the Body of Christ, and what tears it apart?
And why expend angst and energy about maybe-mentions of Earth Day when there is genuinely bad theology being preached from the pulpit, as a friend relates here:
I was willing to overlook the Good Friday sermon saying Jesus didn’t die for our sins and focusing on NAFTA. But I cannot overlook the Easter sermon that says Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead. We were told that the empty tomb was just symbolism and that Jesus’ rising from the dead wasn’t corporal, “like something out of a Frankenstein movie,” but more like how when your parent or spouse dies and you feel their presence around you. It’s pretty bad when you tell your children not to listen to anything the pastor said.
While my friend did indeed wonder—with great sadness—whether this might be a parish-changing offense, rather than simply bolting she and her husband have made an appointment to talk to their pastor first, for the sake of clarity, and that’s the right thing to do.
Too many Catholics hear a disturbing sermon like this one and simply move on to another parish, or they begin to allow that badly seeded theology to take root, which is much worse. Running away from a parish with a disoriented pastor dooms one’s fellow parishioners—especially if they have been poorly catechized—to eating from his poor crop and being left undernourished. That cannot build up the Body of Christ.
More importantly, to depart from a parish without seriously attempting to talk with one’s priest is to leave no opening for what may well be a Holy-Spirit-designed moment—an opportunity for the lay faithful to witness to a priest who has gone terribly off course and begun to mistake common weeds for exotica. Just as our children can sometimes hit us in the face with a truth we’ve forgotten in our parental-omnipotence, occasionally we layfolk have to be willing to use our mustard seeds, lovingly, and patiently as we evangelize a priest. In this way, we exercise stewardship of the parish; we re-hoe the rows he has allowed to veer off into the wilderness and re-orient him away from his shades, toward the light of the Son.
Who has, in fact, Risen!
It is not easy; stewardship never is.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
Comments:
4.26.2011 | 6:36am
A.M says:
Thank you Ms.Scalia , for alerting many to what could be out there !
Often enough though , the depth and brilliance in the homily has made one grateful that , other than the handfuls of parishioners , heaven itself is there to hear them !
Seems the Earth Day people might have gotten part of something right - on May 1st , as plants 'beginning ' to bloom ..
Are they in line with the prophetic voice of Pope John Paul 11 - about the new springtime , in The Church .... he , whose sanctity from living in the power of The Risen One would be gratefeully acknowledged by The Church , on May 1st , when he would be declared Blessed ... a sanctity that involved spending most of the night , in prayer , calling on The Name , to bring His power , into nations and peoples that were enslaved under the Red Dragon and its cohorts ..
May 1st , when The Church celebrates The 8th Day , of The Great Feast ..when the very floodgates of His mercy would be opened - to bring out those entombed in the darkness of doubt and scepticism ...from fear of what it is that they might have to loose , inorder to be able to take in The Power that He wants to extend , over lingering resentments and fleeting moments of feelig superior , by finding fault in the other ..He invites - to call on His Name , on their behalf too , to bring them thus , to His mercy ..to The Blood and Water - The Mercy and the Spirit that brings life , to the arrid and blood soaked earth , to set it free from the rebellious spirits of death and destruction ..
May 1st , in fact the whole month of May when The Mother of us all who are of the earh would be honored specially , that her tender love and guidance sets man's hearts free from destructive greed , tp become wise stewards ..
May 1st , when The Church honors St.Joseph the Worker , whose laboring hands ,
as they say , helped to take care of The One who fashioned the stars , for He had thus willed , to honor the role of the fathers , the bread winners ...
Such help we have ...on behalf of the erring Father figures in The Church too ..
Joseph The Dreamer from Old Testament ...and here is a dream ..
that many a church , home and school would acquire a good sized ( 48 " seems right ) image of The Icon of Mercy -
can also be printed from this site http://www.faustina-message.com/- ,
Let many a struggling person / priest / student sit infront of the ( blessed ) image , gazing at the eyes of our Lord ...to take in His Spirit ..to wash off many a negative image , in the depths of minds and hearts where the pride and fear of the enemy might be lingering , to whisper words of fear and confusion ..
all of it to be washed away ...in The Blood and Water ..
to help the person to rise again , in trust , in The One who lives ..whose Name now would be on the lip of one more ... who in turn would invoke same , on behalf of many ..
to usher in The Spring time ...for renewal of hearts and of the earth ...hearts where the calm of Godly peace reigns ..whose needs would be more in line with what he truly needs , not the excesses ...
Often enough though , the depth and brilliance in the homily has made one grateful that , other than the handfuls of parishioners , heaven itself is there to hear them !
Seems the Earth Day people might have gotten part of something right - on May 1st , as plants 'beginning ' to bloom ..
Are they in line with the prophetic voice of Pope John Paul 11 - about the new springtime , in The Church .... he , whose sanctity from living in the power of The Risen One would be gratefeully acknowledged by The Church , on May 1st , when he would be declared Blessed ... a sanctity that involved spending most of the night , in prayer , calling on The Name , to bring His power , into nations and peoples that were enslaved under the Red Dragon and its cohorts ..
May 1st , when The Church celebrates The 8th Day , of The Great Feast ..when the very floodgates of His mercy would be opened - to bring out those entombed in the darkness of doubt and scepticism ...from fear of what it is that they might have to loose , inorder to be able to take in The Power that He wants to extend , over lingering resentments and fleeting moments of feelig superior , by finding fault in the other ..He invites - to call on His Name , on their behalf too , to bring them thus , to His mercy ..to The Blood and Water - The Mercy and the Spirit that brings life , to the arrid and blood soaked earth , to set it free from the rebellious spirits of death and destruction ..
May 1st , in fact the whole month of May when The Mother of us all who are of the earh would be honored specially , that her tender love and guidance sets man's hearts free from destructive greed , tp become wise stewards ..
May 1st , when The Church honors St.Joseph the Worker , whose laboring hands ,
as they say , helped to take care of The One who fashioned the stars , for He had thus willed , to honor the role of the fathers , the bread winners ...
Such help we have ...on behalf of the erring Father figures in The Church too ..
Joseph The Dreamer from Old Testament ...and here is a dream ..
that many a church , home and school would acquire a good sized ( 48 " seems right ) image of The Icon of Mercy -
can also be printed from this site http://www.faustina-message.com/- ,
Let many a struggling person / priest / student sit infront of the ( blessed ) image , gazing at the eyes of our Lord ...to take in His Spirit ..to wash off many a negative image , in the depths of minds and hearts where the pride and fear of the enemy might be lingering , to whisper words of fear and confusion ..
all of it to be washed away ...in The Blood and Water ..
to help the person to rise again , in trust , in The One who lives ..whose Name now would be on the lip of one more ... who in turn would invoke same , on behalf of many ..
to usher in The Spring time ...for renewal of hearts and of the earth ...hearts where the calm of Godly peace reigns ..whose needs would be more in line with what he truly needs , not the excesses ...
4.26.2011 | 7:04am
A.M says:
Apologies to our Patron Apostle St.Thomas - May 1st is also St.Thomas Sunday ...Thomas 'The Twin ' , whose doubt in turn lead to the great occasion of mercy and the twin response - 'My Lord and My God !'
May his prayers help many to call on our Lord and His help often !
May his prayers help many to call on our Lord and His help often !
4.26.2011 | 8:40am
Michael Kremer says:
The pastor who said the Resurrection was not corporeal, not "like something out of a Frankenstein movie" was reacting against something that is certainly a confused idea -- the idea that seems to be presented in the final scene of the Passion of the Christ -- that Jesus's body just got up and walked out of the tomb, simply a revivified corpse, like Lazarus.
That this isn't the right picture is obvious: if Jesus's body had simply been revived, it would still have been subject to decay and death -- like Lazarus, who presumably did eventually die (again). It would still be just the kind of body it was before the Crucifixion, a human mortal body, programmed to die. But Jesus's post-Resurrection body was like nothing in this world -- really it was clearly from out of this world -- he appears in locked rooms without the doors being opened, he is recognized by some immediately and by others only after revealing himself (Mary Madgalene in John's gospel doesn't recognize him even though she was a close friend; the disciples on the road to Emmaus don't recognize him for a considerable stretch of time); he disappears as rapidly as he appears (again Emmaus). Of course even before his death he was already something from out of this world as well as in it -- who has authority to still the sea? But on Easter his body is clearly not merely raised, it is transformed, as all will be at the Resurrection (1 Cor 15) -- the perishable clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality -- which is not what happened to Lazarus or the others Jesus himself raised during his ministry, as far as I can tell.
But I agree that the pastor is going too far in asserting that there is nothing physical about Jesus's risen body. He eats, he offers to have Thomas put his fingers in his wounds, he cooks a meal, he is not a ghost.
The pastor is operating with a false dichotomy: Frankenstein or ghost. He is half right and half wrong. But it is important to see that he is half right. Many people get it wrong the other way, and they are only half right as well. I got it wrong that way myself for a long time.
But let me join in your final affirmation: He is Risen! Alleluia!
That this isn't the right picture is obvious: if Jesus's body had simply been revived, it would still have been subject to decay and death -- like Lazarus, who presumably did eventually die (again). It would still be just the kind of body it was before the Crucifixion, a human mortal body, programmed to die. But Jesus's post-Resurrection body was like nothing in this world -- really it was clearly from out of this world -- he appears in locked rooms without the doors being opened, he is recognized by some immediately and by others only after revealing himself (Mary Madgalene in John's gospel doesn't recognize him even though she was a close friend; the disciples on the road to Emmaus don't recognize him for a considerable stretch of time); he disappears as rapidly as he appears (again Emmaus). Of course even before his death he was already something from out of this world as well as in it -- who has authority to still the sea? But on Easter his body is clearly not merely raised, it is transformed, as all will be at the Resurrection (1 Cor 15) -- the perishable clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality -- which is not what happened to Lazarus or the others Jesus himself raised during his ministry, as far as I can tell.
But I agree that the pastor is going too far in asserting that there is nothing physical about Jesus's risen body. He eats, he offers to have Thomas put his fingers in his wounds, he cooks a meal, he is not a ghost.
The pastor is operating with a false dichotomy: Frankenstein or ghost. He is half right and half wrong. But it is important to see that he is half right. Many people get it wrong the other way, and they are only half right as well. I got it wrong that way myself for a long time.
But let me join in your final affirmation: He is Risen! Alleluia!
4.26.2011 | 8:59am
A.M says:
Hope too that the repeated mention of the Icon of Mercy and the related site is not cause of misunderstanding ; it is from recognising that this treasure in The Church is
not widely known , the firm hope that it can be a timely help for our many ailments that might be related to the media bombardment of millions of images in our lives !
not widely known , the firm hope that it can be a timely help for our many ailments that might be related to the media bombardment of millions of images in our lives !
4.26.2011 | 9:58am
ferd says:
In my limited experience, Parish priests that are contaminated with ingrained secular ethics (such as radical egalitarianism with Nature or economics or theology) are very much like public school teachers--smug and superior in their moral position. There is little that can persaude a person who has been highly educated into a multi-layered web of error. It is the old gnosticism with a new twist: the premise that THEY are of a superior compassion.
In my parish, a new priest came with the joy of his own enlightened positions on how Jesus really performed no miracles...etc. His joy was coupled with an outspoken revulsion for rosary toting, "bitter" critics of his "loving" morality. He spent many, many sermons tearing into these parish "pharisees" while extolling the virtue of his own loving compassion--always Flattening God and Jesus down to the comforting level of a non-judgmental BFF or traveling buddy.
Elizabeth, great article. If you can override years of indoctrination and actually turn one of these contaminated priest back to the Truth...then you have done the Church a great service!
In my parish, a new priest came with the joy of his own enlightened positions on how Jesus really performed no miracles...etc. His joy was coupled with an outspoken revulsion for rosary toting, "bitter" critics of his "loving" morality. He spent many, many sermons tearing into these parish "pharisees" while extolling the virtue of his own loving compassion--always Flattening God and Jesus down to the comforting level of a non-judgmental BFF or traveling buddy.
Elizabeth, great article. If you can override years of indoctrination and actually turn one of these contaminated priest back to the Truth...then you have done the Church a great service!
4.26.2011 | 9:58am
momofthree says:
Dear Elizabeth,
Sadly, from my experience, "Certainly as Christians we are mindful of our stewardship of the earth" is not true for most. I am stunned daily by the complete ignorance most fellow Catholics have of environmental concerns. Most I know love to hire chemical companies to douse their lawns, think carpooling is an annoyance, and couldn't be bothered to eat meat sparingly. I am sure there are others to refute my claim, but I do not know them.
I thought your thinly-veiled disdain for the outreach from the Earth Day Network folks was unnecessary. I could imagine any number of beautiful sermons which talked about Christ's stewardship of human souls and our call to be stewards of the Earth. Why not reach out and find the truths in their message? They were obviously reaching out. No, I guess it is better for Catholics to wall themselves off, and happily go about imagining that all environmentalists are "Other" with a capital "O".
Sadly, from my experience, "Certainly as Christians we are mindful of our stewardship of the earth" is not true for most. I am stunned daily by the complete ignorance most fellow Catholics have of environmental concerns. Most I know love to hire chemical companies to douse their lawns, think carpooling is an annoyance, and couldn't be bothered to eat meat sparingly. I am sure there are others to refute my claim, but I do not know them.
I thought your thinly-veiled disdain for the outreach from the Earth Day Network folks was unnecessary. I could imagine any number of beautiful sermons which talked about Christ's stewardship of human souls and our call to be stewards of the Earth. Why not reach out and find the truths in their message? They were obviously reaching out. No, I guess it is better for Catholics to wall themselves off, and happily go about imagining that all environmentalists are "Other" with a capital "O".
4.26.2011 | 10:05am
Keith Pavlischek says:
I suppose excommunicating a priest who publicly denies the resurrection from the pulpit would be out of the question?
How bad does heresy have to get before that becomes a serious option?
How bad does heresy have to get before that becomes a serious option?
4.26.2011 | 10:31am
Mike Casey says:
While the idea of sermonizing about Earth Day on Easter is a little silly, I am stunned by Mr Voris' vitriolic response to something fairly innocuous. I mean, stewardship of the Earth is not exactly a dangerous heresy; in fact, it is one of many Christian obligations. If your priest told the parish to go steal or murder or beat their children, that might merit Mr. Voris' reaction. But mentioning that we should try not to wreck the natural environment is akin to telling folks to be nice to their neighbors: simple stuff that might help flesh out a quaint sermon. Why such nice, obvious advice should cause one to quit his parish and skip the collection basket is beyond anything I can understand. Should we punch our priest if we don't like the color of his shoes?
Sounds like Mr. Voris has a political problem, not a religious one.
Sounds like Mr. Voris has a political problem, not a religious one.
4.26.2011 | 11:25am
Jan says:
Good luck to anyone trying to lovingly witness to a priest who has strayed from the truth.
When it gets to the point where they are supplanting the truth with their own doctrine, they've probably already thought it through and worked out all the justifications.
My parish gets a new priest on average every-other-year so I've seen first-hand some very strange behaviors and beliefs.
When it gets to the point where they are supplanting the truth with their own doctrine, they've probably already thought it through and worked out all the justifications.
My parish gets a new priest on average every-other-year so I've seen first-hand some very strange behaviors and beliefs.
4.26.2011 | 11:39am
Caroline Walker says:
Did anyone happen to notice the Google banner on Easter Sunday? On Good Friday, -- or "earth day" on the pagan calendar -- the google banner was positively percolating with special effects ... brooks babbled, butterflies fluttered, bees buzzed...even today -- a plain ol' springtime Tuesday -- the banner is encircled with birds and nests. But on Easter Sunday?? Nada. Goose egg, so to speak.
4.26.2011 | 11:53am
Fr Alvin Kimel says:
About ten or eleven years ago my high school son visited his grandmother in Cleveland and attended Easter Mass with his grandmother at the local Catholic parish. I remember his telephone call on Easter Sunday afternoon. "The priest didn't mention the resurrection of Jesus even once," he exclaimed. He was horrified. I am still horrified.
4.26.2011 | 12:03pm
Carson says:
Christ is risen!
As a non-Catholic, I have to admit to curiosity: what direct steps should an orthodox Catholic take when their parish priest is spouting what is clearly heresy, even to non-theologians—like denying the Resurrection. I mean, Ms. Scalia talks about "seriously attempting to talk" with and trying to "evangelize" the priest, but wouldn't going to your bishop be a better option, one more likely to be fruitful? If a pastor is preaching error, aren't his words capable of poisoning the congregation? Shouldn't he be (at the least) removed from his position?
As a non-Catholic, I have to admit to curiosity: what direct steps should an orthodox Catholic take when their parish priest is spouting what is clearly heresy, even to non-theologians—like denying the Resurrection. I mean, Ms. Scalia talks about "seriously attempting to talk" with and trying to "evangelize" the priest, but wouldn't going to your bishop be a better option, one more likely to be fruitful? If a pastor is preaching error, aren't his words capable of poisoning the congregation? Shouldn't he be (at the least) removed from his position?
4.26.2011 | 12:29pm
JP says:
Carson - the first step is to go to the priest. As in the example above, maybe the priest meant to say that there was a complete transformation of Jesus at the Ressurection, but the priest mangled his message. By going to the priest first, the parishioner is acting in charity and giving the priest the opportunity to correct his communication.
If at the meeting, the priest says, "No, I meant what I said", then the parishioner should take it to the next level.
MomofThree - I think Elizabeth was just pointing out that the Earth Day Network wasn't respecting the very organizations it was asking to help. Homilies on the stewardship of the environment would be excellent homilies and great tie-ins to the goals of the Earth Day Network, but not on Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday. Homilies on those days have, or should have, another focus.
If at the meeting, the priest says, "No, I meant what I said", then the parishioner should take it to the next level.
MomofThree - I think Elizabeth was just pointing out that the Earth Day Network wasn't respecting the very organizations it was asking to help. Homilies on the stewardship of the environment would be excellent homilies and great tie-ins to the goals of the Earth Day Network, but not on Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday. Homilies on those days have, or should have, another focus.
4.26.2011 | 12:38pm
Sheila Gibson says:
Thank you for this wisdom. It can indeed be disturbing to hear this type of thing endorsed from the pulpit. I too believe in the risen Christ, the transformed body, the light of the world. Thank you for emphasizing that just because something in preached in a Sunday sermon it may not be true, and we, as listeners, have the opportunity to share our beliefs; and as you note, the only possible way to do that with a Christian spirit is with a loving approach.
4.26.2011 | 1:13pm
Carson says:
JP: Well noted. Somewhat ironically—or maybe that should be appropriately?—I did not make myself as clear as I should have: by "clearly heresy," I meant to exclude well-intentioned-but-bumbled sermons. I suppose in the back of my head I was also thinking that a priest who strays so far in such a way might well give other signs to make things "clear," though I admit that that's a totally unsubstantiated assumption. You are obviously right that all Christians should act in charity, and I apologize to all for giving a somewhat bloodthirsty impression.
4.26.2011 | 1:32pm
Mandy P. says:
"MomofThree - I think Elizabeth was just pointing out that the Earth Day Network wasn't respecting the very organizations it was asking to help. Homilies on the stewardship of the environment would be excellent homilies and great tie-ins to the goals of the Earth Day Network, but not on Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday. Homilies on those days have, or should have, another focus."
Just to add to this, it got my hackles up that they referred to Easter Sunday as "Earth Day Sunday". I am not a greenie, but I have no issue with conservation. It's a noble cause and goal. But you certainly don't ingratiate yourself with a group of people (Here, Christians) by suggesting that they replace the CENTRAL event of their entire worldview (the Resurrection)-title and all- with one that is, at very best, a secondary concern in the grand scheme of things for that group.
The Earth Day Networks tactics were very tasteless, IMO.
Just to add to this, it got my hackles up that they referred to Easter Sunday as "Earth Day Sunday". I am not a greenie, but I have no issue with conservation. It's a noble cause and goal. But you certainly don't ingratiate yourself with a group of people (Here, Christians) by suggesting that they replace the CENTRAL event of their entire worldview (the Resurrection)-title and all- with one that is, at very best, a secondary concern in the grand scheme of things for that group.
The Earth Day Networks tactics were very tasteless, IMO.
4.26.2011 | 1:50pm
Nancy D. says:
Often times we forget that there does exist a sin of omission such as the failure to defend and pray for the recognition of the sanctity and dignity of every human life and the sanctity of Marriage and the family, which we know, despite the signs of the Time we live in, is often not mentioned in the weekly homily. Any parish priest who would substitute a homily on earth day for one on The Risen Christ, does not take his vocation seriously to begin with. Why not go directly to the source of the letter and ask what their intentions were in distributing this letter to begin with? Perhaps they simply do not understand that The Holy Spirit is The Lord And Giver Of Life, not mother earth.
4.26.2011 | 2:14pm
Deacon Marv Eobertson says:
Church law says this about the homily.
Canon 768.1---Those who proclaim the divine word are to propose first of all to the Christian faithful those things which one must believe and do for the glory of God and the salvation of humanity.
768.2---They are also to impart to the faithful the doctrine which the magisterium of the Church sets forth . . .
Elizabeth, you propose two options: join another parish, or correct the preacher. I would propose a third option. As a deacon, with a special relation to bishop, I have a duty to assist him in his duty to teach, govern and sanctify. In the scenario your friend describes, I would have to prayerfully discern my obligation to inform the bishop of such an egregious distortion of the Resurrection.
Canon 768.1---Those who proclaim the divine word are to propose first of all to the Christian faithful those things which one must believe and do for the glory of God and the salvation of humanity.
768.2---They are also to impart to the faithful the doctrine which the magisterium of the Church sets forth . . .
Elizabeth, you propose two options: join another parish, or correct the preacher. I would propose a third option. As a deacon, with a special relation to bishop, I have a duty to assist him in his duty to teach, govern and sanctify. In the scenario your friend describes, I would have to prayerfully discern my obligation to inform the bishop of such an egregious distortion of the Resurrection.
4.26.2011 | 2:21pm
Fr Carl says:
It is not enough, by all standards - biblical and traditonal - for the priest to merely avoid negative or nonsensical theology; but it is incumbent upon him to preach the Gospel. Such failure is not, and will not be, overlooked or excused by God.
4.26.2011 | 2:38pm
Linus says:
On the Resurrection, I wonder if the lady heard the priest correctly, sometimes the homilest tries to explain something in an erudite way which is beyond his abilities. Then it is possible for the listners to get confused.
The priest in question was stressing a point. Christ did not rise as Lazarus, as a revivified body that would again take its place in our daily physical universe. He rose in a glorified body, the same body, physical but glorified, the same glorified body which stands now before the Father in Heaven. The same body exactly, by the way, which is received in Communion. And when we rise at the end of the world, we will rise in the same kind of glorified body, physical but glorified.At least, I hope that is what he was trying to say.
The priest in question was stressing a point. Christ did not rise as Lazarus, as a revivified body that would again take its place in our daily physical universe. He rose in a glorified body, the same body, physical but glorified, the same glorified body which stands now before the Father in Heaven. The same body exactly, by the way, which is received in Communion. And when we rise at the end of the world, we will rise in the same kind of glorified body, physical but glorified.At least, I hope that is what he was trying to say.
4.26.2011 | 3:06pm
UrbanRevival says:
Well...good luck with talking to that parish priest. Been there. Done that. If you are sitting through a liturgy after which you have to say to your kids "don't listen to a word the priest is saying,” it’s been my experience that it's long past time to go.
Unfortunately, as Voris has also proven, the Bishops are at the very heart of this heretic priest problem. And let's be clear, this is not a misguided priest. This is a HERETIC priest! The current catastrophe that is the Church in America is at the Bishops' feet. May God help them and us.
As far as charity for a fellow Christian, I often think of the scripture passage where our Lord rebukes St. Peter and says "get BACK you Satan!" That surely wasn’t a “Christian response,” at yet, right from the mouth of our Lord it was an entirely appropriate response. Likewise, the same response is required to this "Catholic" priest. Someone needs to tell him to “get BACK you Satan” for nowhere in scripture are we called to be nice. We are called to truth, and only Satan denies our Lord’s resurrection!!
As far as Voris's "rant" - his rant(s) are sweet music to this Orthodox Catholic's ears and are LONG LONG overdue. Finally, someone speaking for us!
We've been nice and charitable for a long time. Look where it's gotten us.
PAX
Unfortunately, as Voris has also proven, the Bishops are at the very heart of this heretic priest problem. And let's be clear, this is not a misguided priest. This is a HERETIC priest! The current catastrophe that is the Church in America is at the Bishops' feet. May God help them and us.
As far as charity for a fellow Christian, I often think of the scripture passage where our Lord rebukes St. Peter and says "get BACK you Satan!" That surely wasn’t a “Christian response,” at yet, right from the mouth of our Lord it was an entirely appropriate response. Likewise, the same response is required to this "Catholic" priest. Someone needs to tell him to “get BACK you Satan” for nowhere in scripture are we called to be nice. We are called to truth, and only Satan denies our Lord’s resurrection!!
As far as Voris's "rant" - his rant(s) are sweet music to this Orthodox Catholic's ears and are LONG LONG overdue. Finally, someone speaking for us!
We've been nice and charitable for a long time. Look where it's gotten us.
PAX
4.26.2011 | 3:07pm
Brian English says:
"The pastor who said the Resurrection was not corporeal, not "like something out of a Frankenstein movie" was reacting against something that is certainly a confused idea -- the idea that seems to be presented in the final scene of the Passion of the Christ -- that Jesus's body just got up and walked out of the tomb, simply a revivified corpse, like Lazarus."
(1) The Christ walking towards the opening in the tomb at the end of the Passion did not bear the marks (outside of the nail holes and the lance wound) of the brutal beatings and flogging he had received, so I believe that was supposed to be His glorified body, not just a reanimated corpse.
(2) Unfortunately, I think you are giving the pastor too much credit. There is definitely a school of thought within the clergy that maintains that Christ's Resurrection was symbolic and/or a purely a spiritual event. His body either remained in the tomb, was stolen, or was eaten by wild dogs.
(1) The Christ walking towards the opening in the tomb at the end of the Passion did not bear the marks (outside of the nail holes and the lance wound) of the brutal beatings and flogging he had received, so I believe that was supposed to be His glorified body, not just a reanimated corpse.
(2) Unfortunately, I think you are giving the pastor too much credit. There is definitely a school of thought within the clergy that maintains that Christ's Resurrection was symbolic and/or a purely a spiritual event. His body either remained in the tomb, was stolen, or was eaten by wild dogs.
4.26.2011 | 5:09pm
Marc says:
Happily, I refreshed the page before repeating Brian English's second point at 1207; although it's true that I have no idea whether the priest being discussed meant this or said that, and one does try to give people the benefit of the doubt (to put it in terms accessible even to the most secular-minded).
4.26.2011 | 5:45pm
Michael Snow says:
Sadly, I agree with Brian English that Michael Kremer is "giving the pastor too much credit," i.e. in Michael's words the pastor "is half right and half wrong. But it is important to see that he is half right. Many people get it wrong the other way, and they are only half right as well."
While Michael may be unfamiliar with the whole 'de-mthologyzing' heresy among certain 'scholars,' he does bring up an important point. The half right/ half wroing scenario has been the source of all sorts of heresies or 'violent' disagreements in the Church through the ages, and not just with doctriens like Christ's humanity and divinity.
We see mind-dead Christianity all around us where Christians divorce love from obedience, prayer from exhortation, forgiveness from repentacnce, and on and on.
The key point in so many of these divisions is what D. Elton Trueblood called "the holy conjunction" i.e. the word "and." Without it we wash our hands of the paradoxes, like Christ's divinity "and" humanity.
While Michael may be unfamiliar with the whole 'de-mthologyzing' heresy among certain 'scholars,' he does bring up an important point. The half right/ half wroing scenario has been the source of all sorts of heresies or 'violent' disagreements in the Church through the ages, and not just with doctriens like Christ's humanity and divinity.
We see mind-dead Christianity all around us where Christians divorce love from obedience, prayer from exhortation, forgiveness from repentacnce, and on and on.
The key point in so many of these divisions is what D. Elton Trueblood called "the holy conjunction" i.e. the word "and." Without it we wash our hands of the paradoxes, like Christ's divinity "and" humanity.
4.26.2011 | 7:56pm
Judy says:
There should be no earth day talk at church. The way it is being portrayed it is very extreme and not a common sense approach to being a good citizen, no matter where you live. It is now to be mother earth and her right to be treat with respect and given rights such as we humans have. It is best to keep that far left type of scenario out of the pulpit. It is the same thing that happened with "social justice" turning into liberation theology, and still have a great sense of that, even now, when the Church has spoken of it often.
As far as speaking to the pastor, good luck. We had tried that, and speaking to others at the Church, too, with an issue we had, but to no avail. They liked what they were doing.... so we did leave. Sometimes that has to be done, for the sake of your soul, and your families.
As far as speaking to the pastor, good luck. We had tried that, and speaking to others at the Church, too, with an issue we had, but to no avail. They liked what they were doing.... so we did leave. Sometimes that has to be done, for the sake of your soul, and your families.
4.26.2011 | 7:58pm
andrew says:
the catholic church is a hospital for sick people in need of christ, not a political pawn to be maneuvered by this or that social cause.
the liturgy of the word has the same aim as the liturgy of the eucharist -- an encounter with christ. therefore, homilies should explicitly remind us of sin, grace, and the costly love of jesus. for there is no good news without the bad news of our sinfulness and rebellion.
why go to church to be reminded of banal platitudes? why not sit at home, turn on the tube, and listen to dr. phil? what's specifically christian about "being nice to neighbours" and "being responsible stewards of the environment?" the answer is "nothing."
in sum, if the church of jesus christ neglects her charge to make disciples of all nations through both word and sacrament, she may as well not exist.
the liturgy of the word has the same aim as the liturgy of the eucharist -- an encounter with christ. therefore, homilies should explicitly remind us of sin, grace, and the costly love of jesus. for there is no good news without the bad news of our sinfulness and rebellion.
why go to church to be reminded of banal platitudes? why not sit at home, turn on the tube, and listen to dr. phil? what's specifically christian about "being nice to neighbours" and "being responsible stewards of the environment?" the answer is "nothing."
in sum, if the church of jesus christ neglects her charge to make disciples of all nations through both word and sacrament, she may as well not exist.
4.26.2011 | 8:26pm
Fr. Jim says:
I never mention or celebrate Earth day. I don't recognize it. I avoid all environmentalist twaddle. The homily is to be based on the readings, mystery being celebrated, or the liturgical texts.
4.26.2011 | 8:34pm
Dan Buckley says:
Michael Voris does not consider the environmentalists as "fairly innocuous," but a danger to the faith, as the following well documented program shows:
http://www.realcatholictv.com/premium/index.php?vidID=ciax-2010-08-25
http://www.realcatholictv.com/premium/index.php?vidID=ciax-2010-08-25
4.26.2011 | 8:56pm
Nancy D. says:
I will presume that you did not receive one of the letters from the earth day network, Father Jim. I am wondering who received these letters and why the earth day network thought those who received the letters would be willing to celebrate "earth day" rather than Easter. Perhaps someone at The National Catholic Register could do some investigative reporting?
4.27.2011 | 12:05am
Steve Martin says:
"Becoming fools they worshipped the creation, rather than the Creator."
4.27.2011 | 12:23am
Michael Kremer says:
What do Michael Voris and his fans think of this?
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html
I have seen Michael Voris proclaim that global warming is a scam. Sadly, we will probably both live long enough to find out how wrong he is.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html
I have seen Michael Voris proclaim that global warming is a scam. Sadly, we will probably both live long enough to find out how wrong he is.
4.27.2011 | 1:54am
John Stockings says:
Scalia quotes:
We were told that the empty tomb was just symbolism and that Jesus’ rising from the dead wasn’t corporal, “like something out of a Frankenstein movie,” but more like how when your parent or spouse dies and you feel their presence around you. It’s pretty bad when you tell your children not to listen to anything the pastor said.
Linus says:
On the Resurrection, I wonder if the lady heard the priest correctly, sometimes the homilest tries to explain something in an erudite way which is beyond his abilities. Then it is possible for the listners to get confused.
The priest in question was stressing a point. Christ did not rise as Lazarus, as a revivified body that would again take its place in our daily physical universe. He rose in a glorified body, the same body, physical but glorified, the same glorified body which stands now before the Father in Heaven. The same body exactly, by the way, which is received in Communion. And when we rise at the end of the world, we will rise in the same kind of glorified body, physical but glorified.At least, I hope that is what he was trying to say.
Another commentator above states that there is a false dichotomy of Jesus being either a ghost or a Frankenstein.
The fact is that as portrayed in the Gospels, Jesus sometimes sometimes is ghost-like and sometimes very physical--being touched, eating with his disciples, declaiming on the scripture to show how he fulfilled it presumably.
The risen Christ will always be essentially a mystery. The resurrection accounts and the empty tomb prove nothing in and of themselves: faith in the incarnation and believing that Christ was the messiah are crucial (and excruciatingly joyful to the suffering disciples then and now.) It might be best to think of the risen Christ as the absolute other (otherworldly) in the world for a short time. The Catholic Catechism states that the resurrection is a transcendent event and that Christ passed from death to another life beyond time and space. Perhaps one can describe this as a glorified state, but that is beyond me theologically. The Catechism also states that the resurrection was a historical event. It tells us Jesus' body did not separate from his soul at death. This is hard to grasp, but is consistent with his divinity.
The consummation of the Word made flesh was the Word conquering the flesh while redeeming it. We know this much without doubt: Jesus appeared to his apostles and disciples very convincingly, and Christendom, Western civilization and humanism followed, the latter being impossible coming out of any other civilization. Do we really need to quibble about a re-animated corpse when the evidence of Christ being risen then and now is so overmastering once faith in a God of love takes hold of our hearts, minds and souls?
We were told that the empty tomb was just symbolism and that Jesus’ rising from the dead wasn’t corporal, “like something out of a Frankenstein movie,” but more like how when your parent or spouse dies and you feel their presence around you. It’s pretty bad when you tell your children not to listen to anything the pastor said.
Linus says:
On the Resurrection, I wonder if the lady heard the priest correctly, sometimes the homilest tries to explain something in an erudite way which is beyond his abilities. Then it is possible for the listners to get confused.
The priest in question was stressing a point. Christ did not rise as Lazarus, as a revivified body that would again take its place in our daily physical universe. He rose in a glorified body, the same body, physical but glorified, the same glorified body which stands now before the Father in Heaven. The same body exactly, by the way, which is received in Communion. And when we rise at the end of the world, we will rise in the same kind of glorified body, physical but glorified.At least, I hope that is what he was trying to say.
Another commentator above states that there is a false dichotomy of Jesus being either a ghost or a Frankenstein.
The fact is that as portrayed in the Gospels, Jesus sometimes sometimes is ghost-like and sometimes very physical--being touched, eating with his disciples, declaiming on the scripture to show how he fulfilled it presumably.
The risen Christ will always be essentially a mystery. The resurrection accounts and the empty tomb prove nothing in and of themselves: faith in the incarnation and believing that Christ was the messiah are crucial (and excruciatingly joyful to the suffering disciples then and now.) It might be best to think of the risen Christ as the absolute other (otherworldly) in the world for a short time. The Catholic Catechism states that the resurrection is a transcendent event and that Christ passed from death to another life beyond time and space. Perhaps one can describe this as a glorified state, but that is beyond me theologically. The Catechism also states that the resurrection was a historical event. It tells us Jesus' body did not separate from his soul at death. This is hard to grasp, but is consistent with his divinity.
The consummation of the Word made flesh was the Word conquering the flesh while redeeming it. We know this much without doubt: Jesus appeared to his apostles and disciples very convincingly, and Christendom, Western civilization and humanism followed, the latter being impossible coming out of any other civilization. Do we really need to quibble about a re-animated corpse when the evidence of Christ being risen then and now is so overmastering once faith in a God of love takes hold of our hearts, minds and souls?
4.27.2011 | 2:29am
Keith Pavlischek says:
Fr. Carl says: "It is not enough, by all standards - biblical and traditonal - for the priest to merely avoid negative or nonsensical theology; but it is incumbent upon him to preach the Gospel. Such failure is not, and will not be, overlooked or excused by God."
I'm with you Fr. Carl. This orthodox confessing evangelical protestant couldn't agree more. But my original question bears repeating. At what point does the preaching of heresy--the denial of the resurrection of Christ in this example--rise to the level of excommunication? I'm not talking merely about clumsy preaching that, indeed, my be addressed privately with the offending priest. But we're talking here about preaching a decidedly FALSE DOCTRINE , so false that a parishiner tells her children to ignore the pastor/priest. So false that it directly contradicts the Gospel--"if Christ be not raised our faith is vain," and all that.
If the CHURCH ignores this kind of thing by allowing a priest in a teaching and pastoral role wouldn't it be reasonable for your average lay person to conclude that the resurrection of the body is not all that important and is not something to get all worked up about?
I'm with you Fr. Carl. This orthodox confessing evangelical protestant couldn't agree more. But my original question bears repeating. At what point does the preaching of heresy--the denial of the resurrection of Christ in this example--rise to the level of excommunication? I'm not talking merely about clumsy preaching that, indeed, my be addressed privately with the offending priest. But we're talking here about preaching a decidedly FALSE DOCTRINE , so false that a parishiner tells her children to ignore the pastor/priest. So false that it directly contradicts the Gospel--"if Christ be not raised our faith is vain," and all that.
If the CHURCH ignores this kind of thing by allowing a priest in a teaching and pastoral role wouldn't it be reasonable for your average lay person to conclude that the resurrection of the body is not all that important and is not something to get all worked up about?
4.27.2011 | 5:35am
edmond says:
(1) "The Christ walking towards the opening in the tomb at the end of the Passion did not bear the marks (outside of the nail holes and the lance wound) of the brutal beatings and flogging he had received, so I believe that was supposed to be His glorified body, not just a reanimated corpse"
That does not jive with Jesus showing His wounds to a doubting Thomas...
As for the pastor lecturing about earthday, I assume he is still trying to awe his congregation by seeming to be relevant. There are some priests who do fall into this trap of trying to make their homilies upbeat and I have sat through many attempts at popularized homilies that have failed dismally! On the other hand we have a priest who comes in twice a week with a five sentence homily which is rich with insight.
That does not jive with Jesus showing His wounds to a doubting Thomas...
As for the pastor lecturing about earthday, I assume he is still trying to awe his congregation by seeming to be relevant. There are some priests who do fall into this trap of trying to make their homilies upbeat and I have sat through many attempts at popularized homilies that have failed dismally! On the other hand we have a priest who comes in twice a week with a five sentence homily which is rich with insight.
4.27.2011 | 11:40am
Brian English says:
"The resurrection accounts and the empty tomb prove nothing in and of themselves: faith in the incarnation and believing that Christ was the messiah are crucial (and excruciatingly joyful to the suffering disciples then and now.)"
Really? If His body was still in the tomb and no one had seen Him risen, would faith in the Incarnation and believing that Jesus was the messiah still be crucial?
Really? If His body was still in the tomb and no one had seen Him risen, would faith in the Incarnation and believing that Jesus was the messiah still be crucial?
4.27.2011 | 12:58pm
mjballou says:
The description of the Resurrection as the disciples' longing for and experiencing the "presence of Jesus in their midst" has been around for years in mainline Protestant circles. Not as doctrine, of course, but as something that was supposed to be more palatable to the educated who dislike miracles and wonders of any sort.
And of course, it's silly.
And of course, it's silly.
4.27.2011 | 2:57pm
Fr Carl says:
Keith,
You are correct - many average pew sitters DO walk around with some very vague and wrong understandings of basic doctrines!
One reason that the NT is filled with exhortations, observations, arguments, and pleas concerning false teaching is precisely the effect it has on the understanding of those receiving the teaching/preaching.
If a priest can not affirm the basic doctrines of the Church in his preaching, teaching and pastoral care, then he must seek to serve God in another area. Bishops have a grave responsibility for discernment, development and discipline of their clergy. What applies to priests re: their teaching goes fourfold for the sub-shepherd!
You are correct - many average pew sitters DO walk around with some very vague and wrong understandings of basic doctrines!
One reason that the NT is filled with exhortations, observations, arguments, and pleas concerning false teaching is precisely the effect it has on the understanding of those receiving the teaching/preaching.
If a priest can not affirm the basic doctrines of the Church in his preaching, teaching and pastoral care, then he must seek to serve God in another area. Bishops have a grave responsibility for discernment, development and discipline of their clergy. What applies to priests re: their teaching goes fourfold for the sub-shepherd!
4.28.2011 | 1:42am
John Stockings says:
Let me clarify what I meant above by saying that the resurrection accounts and the empty tomb mean nothing in and of themselves: the resurrection accounts could have been oral embellishments, hallucinations, or even literary inventions resulting during the period between Jesus' death and the writing of the Gospels; the empty tomb could simply have meant that Jesus' body had been removed by his followers or by others. It is only when the resurrection accounts and empty tomb are put in the context of the entire New Testament--especially the Sermon on the Mount and the Crucifixion sections--and in the context of the Old Testament for that matter, that Christianity necessarily becomes the "Easter faith."
Scalia concludes above: occasionally we layfolk have to be willing to use our mustard seeds, lovingly, and patiently as we evangelize a priest. In this way, we exercise stewardship of the parish; we re-hoe the rows he has allowed to veer off into the wilderness and re-orient him away from his shades, toward the light of the Son.
I couldn't agree with her more, and I would extend her advice to helping any wayward Christian or a nonbeliever who misunderstands basic Christian truths. It is hardly Christ-like to think first of punitive measures.
Scalia concludes above: occasionally we layfolk have to be willing to use our mustard seeds, lovingly, and patiently as we evangelize a priest. In this way, we exercise stewardship of the parish; we re-hoe the rows he has allowed to veer off into the wilderness and re-orient him away from his shades, toward the light of the Son.
I couldn't agree with her more, and I would extend her advice to helping any wayward Christian or a nonbeliever who misunderstands basic Christian truths. It is hardly Christ-like to think first of punitive measures.
4.28.2011 | 11:06am
Brian English says:
"Let me clarify what I meant above by saying that the resurrection accounts and the empty tomb mean nothing in and of themselves: the resurrection accounts could have been oral embellishments, hallucinations, or even literary inventions resulting during the period between Jesus' death and the writing of the Gospels; the empty tomb could simply have meant that Jesus' body had been removed by his followers or by others. It is only when the resurrection accounts and empty tomb are put in the context of the entire New Testament--especially the Sermon on the Mount and the Crucifixion sections--and in the context of the Old Testament for that matter, that Christianity necessarily becomes the "Easter faith."
Maybe I am missing your point, but if you dismiss the Resurrection and the subsequent appearances, why can't the entire New Testament, and certainly the Old Testament, be disregarded in the same fashion?
Maybe I am missing your point, but if you dismiss the Resurrection and the subsequent appearances, why can't the entire New Testament, and certainly the Old Testament, be disregarded in the same fashion?
5.16.2011 | 2:49am
Arebela Detox says:
"The pastor who said the Resurrection was not corporeal, not "like something out of a Frankenstein movie" was reacting against something that is certainly a confused idea -- the idea that seems to be presented in the final scene of the Passion of the Christ -- that Jesus's body just got up and walked out of the tomb, simply a revivified corpse, like Lazarus." The consummation of the Word made flesh was the Word conquering the flesh while redeeming it. We know this much without doubt: Jesus appeared to his apostles and disciples very convincingly, and Christendom, Western civilization and humanism followed, the latter being impossible coming out of any other civilization. Do we really need to quibble about a re-animated corpse when the evidence of Christ being risen then and now is so overmastering once faith in a God of love takes hold of our hearts, minds and souls?
6.24.2011 | 4:35pm
Alegre Gwenn says:
(1) The Christ walking towards the opening in the tomb at the end of the Passion did not bear the marks (outside of the nail holes and the lance wound) of the brutal beatings and flogging he had received, so I believe that was supposed to be His glorified body, not just a reanimated corpse. JP: Well noted. Somewhat ironically—or maybe that should be appropriately?—I did not make myself as clear as I should have: by "clearly heresy," I meant to exclude well-intentioned-but-bumbled sermons. I suppose in the back of my head I was also thinking that a priest who strays so far in such a way might well give other signs to make things "clear," though I admit that that's a totally unsubstantiated assumption. You are obviously right that all Christians should act in charity, and I apologize to all for giving a somewhat bloodthirsty impression.
A good essay. But I have to believe that the percentage of priests who preempted the Holy Week liturgies in favor of Earth Day, was in the low single digits. Same for those who will move that pantheist feast to this Sunday (Divine Mercy). And I'd also be curious to know from ROFT, do many priests still "de-mythologize" the Resurrection?