"Bishop" Schori preaches total apostasy

[Third_Day]

=Yggdrasil;6503342]That doesn’t seem to “preach apostasy” significantly more **radically **than the Catholic Church does:

"]**The plan of salvation **also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

There is nothing “radical” in the above statement. What is the “plan” of salvation that is mention here? It is this: That they accept Christ as their Savior, they confess their sins, repent and be baptized into the Body of Christ and if they respond to all of God’s grace they will embrace the fullnes of the Truth in the Catholic Church.
]

 

[Yggdrasil]

There is nothing “radical” in the above statement. What is the “plan” of salvation that is mention here? It is this: That they accept Christ as their Savior, they confess their sins, repent and be baptized into the Body of Christ and if they respond to all of God’s grace they will embrace the fullnes of the Truth in the Catholic Church.

If that’s the plan, then why are Muslims listed foremost? It would be plainer and far more sensible to simply recommend the repentance and baptism of every non-Christian across the board, and not to rank them by how closely their theology resembles the Judeo-Christian paradigm. No, clearly the Catholic Church is saying something special about Islam. And it does appear radical compared to what has traditionally been taught. John Paul II said to an assembly of Muslims, “we believe in the same God, the one God, the living God." If you care to explain how a God that is a Trinity is “the same, one, and living God” as a God which is emphatically not a Trinity, then you can charitably apply that logic to Bp. Schori’s comments and see if they make any more sense.

 

[1ke]

She claims that God made promises to Islam, a religion which did not exist at the time of the Bible. So this statement is just wrong.

She did not claim God made a promise to Islam. If you listen to what she actually said, she said God made a promise to Ishmael (son of Abraham) and Hagar (the handmaid given to Abraham by Sarah to bear a son), from whom the Muslims claim the descent of their religions.

The Catholic Church says this:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

God fulfilled his promise to the Jews by sending Jesus. He owes no more to them, our first Pope called them to believe.

And yet, the Catholic Church says this:

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. **To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, “**for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

Yes the whole world has access to God, through Jesus Christ. Rather than emphasize this, she denies the necessity of Christ for salvation.

She did not deny the necessity of Christ for salvation. She said what the Church also says, that God **may **work in other ways.

Regarding “outside the Church there is no salvation” the Church says:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation

 

[crazzeto]

In fairness, I don’t remember her commenting on apostates, only those who are ignorant of Christ. Her statement about the Jews in quite correct, and it is not an unorthodox interpretation of scripture to say Mohammad was of a line decended from Ismael, if that is the case then God certainly made promises to Agar.

Please don’t take this as my endorsement of her in any other regard, or anything beyond what I have stated here. And I as I have said previously, even though this may be the case, Mulims and Jews would still be better off accepting the Christ. But I’m not going to protest against something contained with in dogmatic documents of the Church.

Nowhere in her talk does she say anything close to what the Cathechism says:

CCC 847). This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too** may **achieve eternal salvation "

Non-Christians, who are ignorant of Christ do not have a free ticket to heaven. All have the moral obligation to seek the truth.

From the Catechism
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, **the person is culpable **for the evil he commits

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience"

In fairness to her, I would need to hear all of the talk to see if she is “quite” Catholic

 

[1ke]

Better duck, Dorian. There’s an army of angry Episcopalians comin’ your way, bro…criticizing Lady Katharine will get you in hot water LOL…way to go!

There are certainly many things a Catholic can take exception to regarding the teaching/writing/speaking/opinions of a female priest or bishop in the Episcopal church in general, and this one in particular. There are certainly many doctrinal and moral issues that can be debated among Catholics and Episcopalians.

This video clip just isn’t one of them. I think it’s wrong of Catholics to make inflammatory statements and produce no evidence to back up their statements. Especially when evidence can be provided that her comments are in line with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Her statements, and we don’t know what she said past the 2:46 mark when the clip ends, do not contradict what the Catholic Church teaches on these matters at all.

She may or may not hold beliefs and express opinions that would contradict Church teaching as expressed in documents such as Lumen Gentium and Dominus Iesus, but these **particular **comments do not.

 

[Third_Day]

=

Yggdrasil;6504264]If that’s the plan, then why are Muslims listed foremost? It would be plainer and far more sensible to simply recommend the repentance and baptism of every non-Christian across the board, and not to rank them by how closely their theology resembles the Judeo-Christian paradigm. No, clearly the Catholic Church is saying something special about Islam.

The Catholic Church has been at war with Muslims since the first crusade. That is why they are listed separately. Vatican II offered an olive brach to them to open up dialogue with them. Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in One God, the God of Abraham. This is why they are “ranked”. Hindus and Buddists were also addressed at Vatican II but they believe in many gods and so they were addressed separately.

And it does appear radical compared to what has traditionally been taught. John Paul II said to an assembly of Muslims, “we believe in the same God, the one God, the living God." If you care to explain how a God that is a Trinity is “the same, one, and living God” as a God which is emphatically not a Trinity, then you can charitably apply that logic to Bp. Schori’s comments and see if they make any more sense.

John Paul’s statement is not radical. The Jews don’t believe in the Trinity either. Muslims profess to believe in the God of Abraham just like the Jews. Both faiths have not accepted all that has been revealed to Christians, that God is Triune.

 

[CMatt25]

Not quite. She never says what you posted from the CAF article
"On the other hand, the Church has long made it clear that if a person rejects the Church with full knowledge and consent, he puts his soul in danger:
They cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it "

Someone who does not know of Christ, through no fault of their own, will be judged according to the law that is written on their heart. Ignorance of Christ and His Church is not a ticket to heaven. A persons best chance for salvation is in the Church established by Christ, the Catholic Church.

Does being told/taught the Catholic Church is necessary constitute full knowledge if a person does not believe it to be?

 

[Catholic20064]

youtube.com/watch?v=_IxG96wpx60&feature=related

But what else is new.

I consider myself a conservative pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-pope Catholic, but for the life of me I can’t see where what she is teaching here disagrees with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[CMatt25]

I consider myself a conservative pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-pope Catholic, but for the life of me I can’t see where what she is teaching here disagrees with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Sometimes Catholics like to criticize anything TEC

 

[chaunceygardner]

I consider myself a conservative pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-pope Catholic, but for the life of me I can’t see where what she is teaching here disagrees with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I listened to this excerpt of her homily (?) twice, and I would agree with you. Besides, she is NOT Catholic, she is an Episcopalian Bishop. She can’t get in trouble with the Catholic Church, since she doesn’t speak for the Church (but I would love it if she did). Others have pointed out that her statements are pretty much in line with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other documents. Perhaps it is the thinking of some Catholics that does not conform with their Church’s teachings.

Jesus welcomed people from diverse backgrounds and called many of them saved or close to the Kingdom of God (even pagans and those shunned by the Jews). I would also agree with her examples (I think Gandhi was more Christian than 98% of the “Christians” I have known). Mother Teresa said many of the same things that this Bishop says, that a Christian should focus on being a good Christian while encouraging others to be a “good” Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever they were.

I think she has it exactly right. Every church could use more people that think and preach as she does.

Thanks very, very much for bringing this to my attention.

 

[Third_Day]

Does being told/taught the Catholic Church is necessary constitute full knowledge if a person does not believe it to be?

If somone is told about the claims of the Catholic Church, that she is the True Church, then they have a moral obligation to research those claims. If that person cannot, in good conscience, come to believe what the Catholic Church teaches then they are not culpable. However God knows their heart and as St. Paul tell us, at the end of the world God will judge the secrets of men
Romans 2:14 …"their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accuse or perhaps excuse them. This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”

Those who know and believe that the Catholic Church is the true faith yet reject the truth are in serious danger:

Hebrews 6:4-6 “For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt.”

 

[Third_Day]

=chaunceygardner;6504749] Others have pointed out that her statements are pretty much in line with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other documents. Perhaps it is the thinking of some Catholics that does not conform with their Church’s teachings.

Hopefull she added the phrase “through no fault ot their own.” Otherwise she is teaching universalism.

Mother Teresa said many of the same things that this Bishop says, that a Christian should focus on being a good Christian **while encouraging others to be a “good” Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever they were. **
I think she has it exactly right. Every church could use more people that think and preach as she does.

I believe that Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) would disagree with that statement.

ratzinger.us/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=79

"In the spiritual movements of the post-concilar era, there is not the slightest doubt that frequently there has been an obliviousness, or even a suppression, of the issue of truth: here perhaps we confront the crucial problem for theology and for pastoral work today.
"The ‘truth’ is thought to be a claim that is too exalted, a ‘triumphalism’ that cannot be permitted any longer. You see this attitude plainly in the crisis that troubles the missionary ideal and missionary practice.** If we do not point to the truth in announcing our faith, and if this truth is no longer essential for the salvation of Man**, then the missions lose their meaning. In effect the conclusion has been drawn, and it has been drawn today, that in the future we need only seek that Christians should be good Christians, Moslems good Moslems, Hindus good Hindus, and so forth. If it comes to that, how are we to know when one is a ‘good’ Christian, or a ‘good’ Moslem?
“The idea that all religions are – if you talk seriously – only symbols of what ultimately is incomprehensible is rapidly gaining ground in theology, and has already penetrated into liturgical practice. When things get to this point, faith is left behind, because faith really consists in the fact that I am committing myself to the truth so far as it is known. So in this matter also there is every motive to return to the right path.”

 

[CMatt25]

If somone is told about the claims of the Catholic Church, that she is the True Church, then they have a moral obligation to research those claims. If that person cannot, in good conscience, come to believe what the Catholic Church teaches then they are not culpable. However God knows their heart and as St. Paul tell us, at the end of the world God will judge the secrets of men
Romans 2:14 …"their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accuse or perhaps excuse them. This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”

Those who know and believe that the Catholic Church is the true faith yet reject the truth are in serious danger:

Hebrews 6:4-6 “For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt.”

t-u 3rd day

 

[Zach82]

What was the last thing I said in my post? “In fairness to her, I would need to hear all of the talk to see if she is “quite” Catholic”

You see, the problem is that your continue to denounce her without having heard the rest of the clip. Your objections are not based in what she actually said, but what you imagine she is saying.

Zach

 

[chaunceygardner]

Hopefull she added the phrase “through no fault ot their own.” Otherwise she is teaching universalism.

And that is wrong why?

I believe that Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) would disagree with that statement.

ratzinger.us/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=79

"In the spiritual movements of the post-concilar era, there is not the slightest doubt that frequently there has been an obliviousness, or even a suppression, of the issue of truth: here perhaps we confront the crucial problem for theology and for pastoral work today.
"The ‘truth’ is thought to be a claim that is too exalted, a ‘triumphalism’ that cannot be permitted any longer. You see this attitude plainly in the crisis that troubles the missionary ideal and missionary practice.** If we do not point to the truth in announcing our faith, and if this truth is no longer essential for the salvation of Man**, then the missions lose their meaning. In effect the conclusion has been drawn, and it has been drawn today, that in the future we need only seek that Christians should be good Christians, Moslems good Moslems, Hindus good Hindus, and so forth. If it comes to that, how are we to know when one is a ‘good’ Christian, or a ‘good’ Moslem?
“The idea that all religions are – if you talk seriously – only symbols of what ultimately is incomprehensible is rapidly gaining ground in theology, and has already penetrated into liturgical practice. When things get to this point, faith is left behind, because faith really consists in the fact that I am committing myself to the truth so far as it is known. So in this matter also there is every motive to return to the right path.”

It sounds like Benedict (when he was Ratzinger) is saying that we have to hold the doctrinal line or the Church loses the force of “truth” and can no longer be the exclusive gatekeeper to salvation. Is it only Christians who can know “truth”? Why would God not want ALL to have access to the truth? In what I have read of other cultures and beliefs, I have found “truths”, many of which are very similar to the Christian versions. Where did those come from, if not from God?

I am most intrigued by his line about “good” Christian or “good” Moslem. “How are WE to know”?, he asks. Well, it is God who needs to know and who will decide that for each of us. We learn this by what God tells us, and not only us but the entire world. Why do we think that God only speaks to a certain group of people who descended from a small Palestinian Jewish sect 2000 years ago? Can God not speak to non-Christians? We know He has spoken to and through the Jews. Would God write off 3/4 of the world because they have not proclaimed Jesus as Lord? That is very difficult to accept, and seems very parochial, selfish and terribly biased. It is like saying God only belongs to us, and we are the only ones with the keys to heaven.

If that is what you believe, then you do not see the Christian God as the universal, all-encompassing God. You really see Him as the early Jews did, as their personal God who is stronger and better than the other gods. So much for monotheism.

 

[nhylan]

This is a rediculous thread started by a “Christian.” This got me angry. To denigrate a presiding bishop of another church… sometimes you should just mind your own business.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

The title is wrong…

She does not preach Apostasy. Why can I say this…??

a·pos·ta·sy (ə-pŏs’tə-sē)
n. pl. a·pos·ta·sies
Abandonment of one’s religious faith, a political party, one’s principles, or a cause.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostasy

Since she is not a Catholic she does not hold the same faith. Since most protestants hold that Sola Scriptura/ Sola Fida is the way and since they do not have a Magisterium or Pope nobody can definitively state what the “True” faith is. Therefore anybody can hold any belief based on their own personal understanding of the Bible and they would be right. As a former LCMS what is passed for Lutheran beliefs are not what Martin Luther stated. They will say that he was in error.

Bottom line is that Protestant has a religion of their own and therefore the term Apostasy does not really apply since they hold true to their own beliefs, whatever that may be.

 

[TriuneUnity]

It sounds like Benedict (when he was Ratzinger) is saying that we have to hold the doctrinal line or the Church loses the force of “truth” and can no longer be the exclusive gatekeeper to salvation. Is it only Christians who can know “truth”?

Yes. His name is Jesus.

Why would God not want ALL to have access to the truth?

God prevents no one from knowing Christ.

In what I have read of other cultures and beliefs, I have found “truths”, many of which are very similar to the Christian versions. Where did those come from, if not from God?

The Law, which is written on the heart and conscience of every man, woman, and child.

Can God not speak to non-Christians? We know He has spoken to and through the Jews.

Yes, He most certainly did, however, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.”

Would God write off 3/4 of the world because they have not proclaimed Jesus as Lord?

Obviously not, if He bled and died for all of humanity. If they reject the work of His Son, however, they will suffer the justice due them for their sins.

That is very difficult to accept, and seems very parochial, selfish and terribly biased. It is like saying God only belongs to us, and we are the only ones with the keys to heaven.

“When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.”

So much for monotheism.

Who is not a monotheist, the one who proclaims that there is One God and He is Father, Son, and Spirit, or the one who proclaims that Allah, Yaweh, Buddha, and Pan are all the same god?

 

[chaunceygardner]

When I asked: “Is it only Christians who can know ‘truth’”?", you responded:

Yes. His name is Jesus

So, that does eliminate 3/4 of the world from the possibility of salvation, according to your theology.

God prevents no one from knowing Christ.

But MUST they know Christ as we know him, or are there other ways? If you are right, what about all those who have never heard the teachings of Jesus, or were not Jews in earlier times? Are they out of luck? Why would God allow that?

I said: “In what I have read of other cultures and beliefs, I have found “truths”, many of which are very similar to the Christian versions. Where did those come from, if not from God?” Your response:

The Law, which is written on the heart and conscience of every man, woman, and child.

Ah-ha! The law, which comes from…God, right? So those truths have been revealed to people who have not been exposed to Jesus…so then why cannot they be saved if they accept and live according to those truths? Is God playing games with some people, giving them a part of the answer but not the whole thing? Teasing them, in a way?

I said: “Can God not speak to non-Christians? We know He has spoken to and through the Jews.”

Yes, He most certainly did, however, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.”

ONLY spoken through His son? Are you sure? That is not what you indicate above. If that is so, why only speak to some, and not all? Is God that unfair? And then you apparently say that God no longer even speaks to the Jews, the Chosen, the people of the Covenant and of the religion of Jesus? WOW!

I asked: “Would God write off 3/4 of the world because they have not proclaimed Jesus as Lord?”

Obviously not, if He bled and died for all of humanity. If they reject the work of His Son, however, they will suffer the justice due them for their sins.

If Jesus did this, then (again) why not make that known to the whole world at once? God could do that, you know. So, if God speaks to others separately and they in turn embrace and live by God’s word (The Jews, Muslims, ??), but because they have not done so through Jesus that will be a sin? Whose sin? Why?

To my question about whether the keys to the Kingdom are available to a select few, you quoted:

“When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.”

But He is apparently unwilling to share those keys, according to your theology. Heaven help us!

To my statement: “If that is what you believe, then you do not see the Christian God as the universal, all-encompassing God. You really see Him as the early Jews did, as their personal God who is stronger and better than the other gods. So much for monotheism”

You said:

Who is not a monotheist, the one who proclaims that there is One God and He is Father, Son, and Spirit, or the one who proclaims that Allah, Yaweh, Buddha, and Pan are all the same god?

Let’s think about this. On one hand we have the One God, but who is really three separate versions of God, and who can appear and act independent of each other? Okay. Compare that with God, Allah, Yahweh, different names for the same SINGLE deity. (We can leave out Buddha, since Guatama was a human being and a wisdom teacher, not a God; and Pan, who was one of the pantheon of Greek/Roman gods. Not in the same arena.) So, yes, if a monotheist is one who can claim the concept of one God in three persons, I see no problem with viewing God, Allah, Yahweh, and Elohim and other titular derivations as one and the same.

NOTE: There is an interesting old story by Arthur C. Clarke called “The Nine Billion Names of God.” The premise was that there were (are) that many different titles for the same Supreme Being, some of which were yet to be discovered. You can find it on-line (no longer under a copyright).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

All I need to hear is “bishop” “her” in the same sentence and I disregard it as heterodoxy. I don’t recognize her authority or teaching office in any way, shape, or form anyway. I have read enough of her drivle already.

There are certainly many things a Catholic can take exception to regarding the teaching/writing/speaking/opinions of a female priest or bishop in the Episcopal church in general, and this one in particular. There are certainly many doctrinal and moral issues that can be debated among Catholics and Episcopalians.

This video clip just isn’t one of them. I think it’s wrong of Catholics to make inflammatory statements and produce no evidence to back up their statements. Especially when evidence can be provided that her comments are in line with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Her statements, and we don’t know what she said past the 2:46 mark when the clip ends, do not contradict what the Catholic Church teaches on these matters at all.

She may or may not hold beliefs and express opinions that would contradict Church teaching as expressed in documents such as Lumen Gentium and Dominus Iesus, but these **particular **comments do not.