Catholic v. catholic

Mark Alexander of the Patriot Post has written a very clear exposition on the differences between the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches which is posted verbatim below. A life long Episcopalian disenchanted with the social and political positions taken by the ECUSA, Alexander's remarks struck home to me as one who has made the same journey. He has found at least a temporary "home" in the Presbyterian Church, while I'm still looking. Alexander's recounting of the Reformation and the emergence of the protestant churches is particularly timely inasmuch as we are witnessing now the results of an unreformed Islamic faith which looks a lot like the Catholic Church before the Martin Luther led revolt in 1512. Somehow until we see the Islamic faith reformed to include embracing the concepts of separation of church and state, toleration of other faiths, and equal rights for women, I doubt we'll see any lessening of the exportation of terrorism from the middle eastern swamp.

Mark Alexander's thoughts:

Joseph Alois Ratzinger became the 265th Pope of the Roman Catholic Church on 19 April 2005, taking the name Benedict XVI, which is Latin for “the blessed.”

In the two years since his election to lead the largest denomination of Christians in the world, Benedict has been outspoken in his decrial of theological relativism and has been a strong advocate for the authority of Scripture.

The Pope has been resolute in his discernment of controversial social issues, especially his denunciation of the killing of unborn children and the normalization of homosexuality.

We praised Benedict last September when he boldly and rightly called attention to Islam and its history of violent conversion. Although Benedict was quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor when making his case, the Muslim “street” responded all too predictably—with violence.

A week later, Benedict retracted his rhetorical critique of Islam, stating, “These in fact were quotations from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.” He added, “I would like today to stress my total and profound respect for all Muslims.” Benedict even made an appearance in Istanbul’s Blue Mosque, where he prayed with the Grand Mufti.

Giving him credit where due, however, Benedict is a man in pursuit of reconciliation among all people, and his retraction indicates that he is called to make peace with Muslims, not condemn them.

In 2005, Benedict proclaimed, “I place my ministry in the service of reconciliation and harmony among peoples, profoundly convinced that the great good of peace is above all a gift of God, a fragile and precious gift to be invoked, safeguarded and constructed, day after day and with everyone’s contribution.”

Admirably, the Pope has taken steps to heal the 1054 schism between Catholics in the Roman Church and those in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the 1517 schism between Catholics and believers in the Protestant Reformation Church.

Arguably, the most significant doctrinal difference between the Catholic Church and the Protestant and Reformed churches is that the Catholic Church has proclaimed itself, as an institution, the intercessor between laity and God, while Protestant Reformation churches promote individual relationships with Jesus Christ.

Breaking with tradition, however, “Friendship with Jesus Christ” has been thematic in many of Benedict’s homilies and sermons. “We are all called to open ourselves to this friendship with God... speaking to Him as to a friend, the only One who can make the world both good and happy... That is all we have to do is put ourselves at His disposal.” In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict’s underlying theme is “to help foster [in the reader] the growth of a living relationship [with Jesus Christ].”

On the subject of unity, Benedict noted in a recent sermon, “The divisions which exist among Christians are a scandal to the world.”

Indeed they are—which is why I take exception to the Pope’s recent reaffirmation of an edict proclaiming the primacy of the Catholic Church. In doing so, Benedict served no purpose other than to widen those divisions between Catholics and Protestants.

On 29 June 2007, the canonical Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a 16-page decree titled “One Church,” on the approval of Benedict XVI “because some contemporary theological interpretations of Vatican II’s ecumenical intent had been ‘erroneous or ambiguous’ and had prompted confusion and doubt.”

Vatican II (1962-1965) was the 21st ecumenical council by the Roman Church, and though its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church states that “the sole Church of Christ... subsists in the Catholic Church,” it noted, “Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines.”

Catholic legalists protest that the Second Vatican Council, and subsequent interpretations of its decrees, undermined the certainty that the Catholic Church was and remains the one and only true Christian church as founded by Jesus Christ.

In response, the latest decree restates the key sections of a 2000 text the Pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, Dominus Iesus, and notes in part that “Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century... do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense,” or “how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to them.”

In other words, “the full identity of the Church of Christ... established here on Earth” is the Roman Catholic Church, and Protestant and Reformed congregations do not constitute churches, because the Catholic Church alone has “the fullness of the means of salvation.” Notably, however, the decree does concede, “The Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

To comprehend Benedict’s divisive decree, one must have some understanding of events leading up to the Protestant Reformation.

The word “catholic” is from the Greek meaning “universal,” and the earliest surviving reference to the “Catholic Church” appears in a letter from Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, to Christians in Smyrna (AD 107). In context, Ignatius used the term to reference the whole Christian Church.

Continuity in the early church was based on apostolic succession beginning with Simon Peter, Apostle to Jesus, whom Jesus called upon (as recorded in the Gospel of John 21:15-19), to “Feed my lambs... Take care of my sheep.” In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says, “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

In AD 380, the term “Catholic” was defined under Roman Imperial law by Emperor Theodosius in an edict declaring Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire—what many theologians would argue was an unfortunate wedding of church and state.

In the centuries that followed, doctrinal and papal authority disputes resulted in splits from the Roman Church, and the establishment of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East.

However, the most significant split was the Protestant Reformation, beginning with Martin Luther’s 1517 posting of his “Ninety-Five Theses On the Power of Indulgences” to the Wittenberg Castle Church door. Luther’s objective was not to divide the church, but to call attention to its gross pontifical and institutional corruption, particularly malpractices and false doctrines like the teaching and selling or indulgences, the practice of buying and selling church positions and the Church’s doctrine on purgatory.

Other notable reformers like Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin followed Luther’s lead.

But in the century that followed, it became clear that “Catholic Reform” was not possible, given that the Church of Rome would not divest itself of corruption and false doctrines related to purgatory, particular judgment, devotion to Mary, the intercession of the saints, sacramental rituals with no biblical basis, and papal authority.

As a result of the Protestant Reformation, which was cemented in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, the Roman Church declared that apostolic succession could not be claimed by the Protestant Church. Consequently, Pope asserts that the administration of the sacraments is not authentic or legitimate, and thus no church really exists outside the Roman Church.

The World Alliance of Reformed Churches issued rebuttals calling into question “whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity,” and concluding the “exclusive claim that identifies the Roman Catholic Church as the one church of Jesus Christ... goes against the spirit of our Christian calling toward oneness in Christ.”

In the current Protestant and Reformed theological vernacular, “catholic” with a lower-case “c” connotes oneness—the “full Body of Christ” —all believers united as one church—as it was used in the early church. “Catholic” with a capital “C” refers to the institution of the Roman Church.

The question remains, “Is the Pope, first and foremost, a Catholic or a catholic?” A more essential question might be, “Which would Jesus be?”

(Note: Mark Alexander is a fifth-generation Episcopalian, who broke with his beloved church in 1994, when it became clear that the Episcopal Church USA would not reform its heretical teachings. Today, ECUSA is considered heretical by most of the World Anglican Communion. Currently, Mr. Alexander is a “permanent visitor” with a Presbyterian Church in America congregation.)

The Quisling NYTimes

Victor Davis Hanson, the classic studies professor and real time third generation California farmer, weighs in on the NYTimes editorial board's call for an immediate and precipitous withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. His analysis can be read by clicking on the "Title" bar above next to the arrow pointing to your right. It is well worth reading. It is almost discouraging that the NYTimes represents a constituency at all on the matter of the War on Terror, but, regrettably and unfortunately it does. It represents the very same constituency that Neville Chamberlain represented in Great Britain during the rise of the Nazis in the 1930's, the same constituency that George McGovern represented here in the US during the Vietnam struggle, and the same constituency represented currently by Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Schumer and Murtha and their craven cohorts in the Congress of the United States. They are the losers of the world. To follow their lead is to consign the Iraqis and all middle easterners who want a better life grounded in freedom to a continuing life of poverty and subjucation in political systems that consign them to second class status. It also puts each and every American at extreme physical risk by emboldening the most evil force at large in the world today. Islamic Jihadists are the enemy, and they want to kill all of us infidels. Those who do not comprehend this simple fact need to be marginalized by the rest of us. Victor Davis Hanson makes this point clearly and succinctly.

Some answers to gnawing questions.

Todays's WSJ online "Opinion Journal", free to anyone at http://www.opinionjournal.com, featured two articles which coalesced in such a way to provide at least some answers to questions about liberals and the War on Terror that have bothered and confused many conservatives, myself included, since 9/11. The first question is why do liberals hate America? and the second is why can't liberals see the threat represented by the Islamic jihadist movement to our very existence? The first question is in part answered by Fred Siegel's article, "The True Politics of the Paranoid Style"( http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010322), and the second by Dan Henninger's column at http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110010324. In the "The True Politics of the Paranoid Style", Siegel describes how liberals conflated the assassination of JFK by a communist fellow traveller, Lee Harvey Oswald, with a "sick", racist and violent, American society. This incorrect conflation has led to conspiracy theories about JFK's murder and the paranoid attitude by liberals that the right wing anti-communist zealots in the U.S. will stop at nothing in their drive to take control of the country as the Nazis did in Germany during the 1930's. And thus we have today all the ranting and raving by liberals about Bush's attempts to use the threat of terrorists to roll back civil liberties in the U.S., and all the other imagined assaults on individual rights in the name of fighting a "handful" of insurgents. Dan Henninger's column describes the insidious, anti-western internet based propaganda campaign being waged on a massive scale by the Jihadists, and the clever way this campaign plays on the self loathing of liberals. Once one understands Siegel's point that the liberal mindset of America as a "sick" society, racist and violent, the obvious conclusion is they agree with the Jihadists and in their heart of hearts want the destruction of the American society as they now perceive it to be. What this all tells me is that those who believe in America, its basic goodness and role as a beacon for freedom in the world, need to expose and defeat not only Islamic Jihadists, but defeat the mindset of fellow traveller liberals as well, who wittingly or not, are abetting Jihadists aims. One is reminded of Lenin's, "useful idiots" comment used to describe those citizens living in democracies who supported the aims of the imperialist Soviet Union and communism.

Bush Presidency -- about to cut and run?

Comments by my favorite bloggers at powerline blog today are worrisome to the 30% or so of the populace (me included) who still support President Bush. According to powerline, administration insiders are counseling Bush to sign on to the withdrawal plan promoted by the Baker Commission and the Democrat Party, a plan which essentially consigns the surge strategy of General Patreus to the trash bin. It's hard to imagine, after the three year struggle to find the new surge strategy, and the appearance of at least partial success of that strategy, why anyone would take this particular moment in time to abandon it. The pacificists (almost all Democrat Party members) are at least consistent. They have opposed the war since it took a turn for the worse in 2004. Still it's hard to find the logic in the position of those who felt that removing Sadam was a must in 2002, and setting Iraq on a path to democratic governance was a logical next step to bring some sanity to the fetid middle east, but now is the time to bug out. Cutting and running at this point in time plays directly into the hands of al Qaeda and the Iranian mad mullahs, both on a crusade to establish the next worldwide caliphate under Shariah law with all the loss of civil liberties this would mean to men and women, especially women. It is this latter group with the most to lose if these religious fanatics are successful. It's hard to imagine Amercian women walking around in burqas. Bret Stephens, the always sensible columnists at the WSJ, weighs in today with a cogent piece on the failure of America's foreign service to forcefully argue our values in the struggle against the radical islamists. His article, reprinted below, speaks for itself and indirectly explains why the pacifists want to cut and run at this point in time: his bottom line is that most of them are so infected with the mulitculturism and politically correct viruses, they no longer believe in the supremecy of the values of liberal democratic political and economic systems. Bret's column is spot on!

Public Diplomacy for Dummies
The Bush administration falters in the battle of ideas.

BY BRET STEPHENS
Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Late last month, President Bush gave an address at the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., where he announced that the United States would for the first time appoint an observer to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. "Our special envoy will listen to and learn from representatives from Muslim states and will share with them America's views and values," he said. "This is an opportunity for Americans to demonstrate to Muslim communities our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship."

To say public diplomacy hasn't been this administration's forte is a truism and an understatement. Still, it's hard to recall any presidential initiative as spectacularly misjudged and needless since Ronald Reagan paid tribute to Nazi soldiers at Bitburg. The OIC's signal contribution to date has been a decades-long boycott by Muslim countries against Israel. The Islamic Center is a Saudi-funded institution that, as Freedom House documented in 2005, distributes Wahhabi religious literature. Charming tidbit: "It is forbidden for a Muslim to be the first in greeting an unbeliever, even if he had prestigious position. This is due to many established holy traditions, in this matter, like his [Prophet Muhammad] saying [peace be upon him]: Do not be first, in greeting the Jews and the Christians."

Dutifully in attendance at the president's speech was Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes. Critics of the administration usually point to Mr. Bush's policies and his public persona as the source of America's declining stock in global public opinion surveys. But public diplomacy is also the job of American embassies and ambassadors, taxpayer-funded broadcasting corporations such as Voice of America, military officials and especially Ms. Hughes. In theory, their job is to wage a battle of ideas against radical Islam. In practice and effect, however, too often reality is otherwise.

Take the case of career diplomat Francis Riccardione, currently the U.S. ambassador to Egypt. In interviews with the Egyptian media, Mr. Riccardione has said that American officials have "no right to comment" on the case of Ayman Nour, the former opposition leader imprisoned on trumped-up charges; that faith in Egypt's judiciary is "well-placed," and that president Hosni Mubarak--now in his 26th year in office-- "is loved in the U.S." and "could win elections [in America] as a leader who is a giant on the world stage." Mr. Riccardione also admits he "enjoyed" a recent film by Egyptian artist Shaaban Abdel Rahim, best known for his hit song "I Hate Israel."
Or take the Voice of America's Persian Service. According to a Farsi-speaking source who tracks the broadcasts, during last year's war between Hezbollah and Israel, VOA reporter Nazi Beglari opined that "Hezbollah ended the Israeli occupation in the past and is doing it again." Camera shots lingered over toys scattered near bomb sites and a burnt page of the Quran--evidence, presumably, of Israel's intent to destroy Islam and murder Muslim children.

Then there is Ms. Hughes herself. During one of her first overseas ventures as public diplomacy czarina, Ms. Hughes visited Indonesia--the world's largest Muslim country--where she met its very own Bono, rock star Ahmad Dhani. Mr. Dhani had recently released his album "Laskar Cinta," or "Warriors of Love," a deliberate and political response to the terrorist atrocities perpetrated by Laskar Jihad. Ms. Hughes seemed enthralled by both the message and the messenger.

"Hughes met Dhani, praised him to the skies, and said 'people like you are exactly what we need,'" recalls C. Holland Taylor, an American who runs the LibForAll foundation with which Mr. Dhani is associated. "She then asked us whether he would be willing to work with the State Department, whether he'd be willing to travel and whether there was anything she could do for him. We answered all three questions affirmatively. Since then there's been a vast silence."

LibForAll is itself a model of what a competent public diplomacy effort in the Muslim world should look like. Mr. Taylor, a former telecom executive who moved to Jakarta in the 1990s and speaks fluent Indonesian, has engaged influential and genuinely reform-minded Muslims--as opposed to the faux "moderates" on whom Mr. Bush lavished praise at the Islamic Center--to articulate and defend a progressive and tolerant version of Islam.

In its brief life, LibForAll has helped turn back an attempted Islamist takeover of the country's second-largest Muslim social organization (with 30 million members), translated anti-Wahhabist books into Indonesian, sponsored a recent multidenominational conference to denounce Holocaust-denial, brought Mr. Dhani to Colorado to speak to U.S. military brass, and launched a well-researched "extremist exposé" in order, Mr. Taylor says, "to get Indonesian society to consciously acknowledge that there is an infiltration occurring of radical ideology, financed by Arab petrodollars, that is intent on destroying Indonesian Islam."

For his efforts, Mr. Taylor has been cold-shouldered by the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta--more proof that when it comes to public diplomacy the U.S. government functions with its usual genius and efficiency. But there's more at work here than a bumbling and insipid bureaucracy. As the scholar Carnes Lord notes in his useful book on public diplomacy, "Losing Hearts and Minds," America's public diplomatists "are today no longer as convinced as they once were that America's story is after all fundamentally a good one, or believe an alternative, negative story is at least equally plausible." Hence someone like Mr. Riccardione can say, when asked about discrimination in Egypt (where a Coptic population amounting to about 10% of the population has one member in the 444-seat parliament) that it "happens everywhere, even in the U.S."

No doubt a dose of moral equivalence served Mr. Riccardione's purposes in getting through his interview without a rhetorical scrape. No doubt, too, maintaining (or pretending) a blissful ignorance about the ideology being propagated by the Islamic Center served Mr. Bush's political purposes. But if effective public diplomacy is really as vital in the war on terror as everyone appears to agree it is, we need better ambassadors, better administrators and a better sense of who we need to engage and how. At least Mr. Taylor has a clue. The administration could stand to learn from him.
Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.