One of the most disgusting traits in the Catholic Church today is the pre-eminence we now place upon the spin theologians outside the Church. They have their own agenda, which, governed by their ideology cannot accept the hard doctrines of the Church. We all know that if these hard doctrines were taught by the Churchmen, there would not be so many converts. We no longer use our Church Fathers as explainers of the scriptures by reading their commentaries. In fact we are more absorbed in making ourselves closer to and more like Lutherans and Pentecostals by using their theologies which have no relationship to our beliefs. We are hastened along this path by our Hierarchs, who allow indifferentism and not Catholicism, for minimalism and not adherence to Christ’s teachings. Those catholics excited at the time 40 odd years ago, by the call to renewal in the Church, must feel dreadfully hoodwinked, that is if they ever pray and think about what they are learning and have the gumption to check, check and re-check what they are being taught. I never could find instructions by any Bishop or periti, who were there, on what Vat. 2 was all about when considered against the promulgated papers of the council. I did find many opinions that I class as private revelations. If we were to truly read First Corinthians in a catholic sense, if we examined Second Corinthians towards the end, we would know how Paul in Chapter 10 is warning us of overconfidence in our actions and tells how in Exodus the Hebrews were punished by God for the idolatrous, licentious dancing after their communal sacrifice and meal. You will find, in verse 11 and following, a warning to us all in that chapter,
We cannot take as some do, the Acts as a guide for renewal of whatever kind. The renewal it seems in the Acts was a return to Judaism, a heresy of Judaizing, and then as now it is very likely a denial of revelation. It would seem more than a small number of the Apostles accepted the return to Hebrew practices. We may also reason, that if the Acts were the answer then why are the present Bishops so different than the Apostles of those times? We cannot take Paul as an example because those who use Paul so much and I mean the renewal movement, do not despite all their claims, do not exhibit good fruits. JP2 once wrote and asked them to return to their parishes and do good works.They do however do claim Holiness because they speak in tongues. When in conversation with these folks the disparagement in their voices for us ordinary mortals seems more like pride to me. They have an overconfidence in the nature of their holiness, if we take Paul’s descending order of gifts, tongues are low on the totem pole and are dismissed as wrongheaded if no one present can translate them. I wonder if when they examine their conscience, finding there in themselves a grave sin of some kind while still speaking in what they claim as tongues that is Glossalia. This is not the word used by Chrysostom for the true gift of tongues (Languages) the word Xenonalia used by
We could in the world today, when we read the many commentaries upon
Spin Doctors have literally taken St Paul by the collar and spun him for all their worth. Christians or Nazarenes, soon to be called Catholic differentiating themselves from the gnostics, still worshipped in the synagogues. This was about to change when after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem moved their temple site north and demanded from all who worshipped, an eighteenth benediction was to be added to their daily prayers that were prayed three times a day. (see former blog). At this time Paul was converting Gentiles and Jews. He fought strongly over any return to a form of Judaism, especially circumcision and attitudes of prayer. He also was strongly opposed to dancing and tongues. In First Corinthians 10:7 Paul wrote. “Neither ye become idolaters, as some of them, as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play” Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed it, and there fell in one day twenty three thousand”. 'Play‘, in the footnotes of the early bibles and in Catholic Commentaries was always described as dancing. It is a dictionary of the English language problem. When did dance enter the Eng. language and what does the Divine revelation document of Vatican 2 tell us how the bible is traditionaly translated? 'fornication’ to the Hebrews was not only the sin of adultery it was a licentious behaviour of the worst kind and a sinful act with the foreign gods of other nations, worshipped deliberately or inadvertently. Paul points this out in First Corinthians too.
Inculturation in the Church today is completely opposed to the dictates of Vatican 2 which says paraphrased, that we can adopt habits of adoration from others only if they are reverently applied to our worship. When we bring the native Indians of North America into the Church, smudging a priest, and altar by a Native Holy man or whatever is dreadfully wrong. An anointed man of God, a priest is the one who does the blessing of the altar, offers the sacrifice, and performs the rituals and forgives sins. It cannot be otherwise. Christ never danced on the Altar and certainly did not at the Last Supper, so why do we have people performing such desecrating acts on our altars including horror of horrors, Priests. I ask what did God do to the women who watched David dance, who was naked in the presence of the