Is Catholic triumphalism intrinsically a bad thing?

[MilesXpisti]

Gottle of Geer:

So much for the rejection of superiority being “humble and colorless and non-threatening” ## It is present “in mystery” as Vatican 2 teaches. It is “not a kingdom of this world” (John 18.36). According to that gospel, Christ’s exaltation is His Crucifixion - for that is how He was “lifted up”. He is a King - but not by leave of the devil.

The text you quoted referred to the faith borne of it, not the act itself, which conversely tends towards a venom that is seldom matched. As to the Kingdom “not of this world,” it was true at the time of His audience with pilot that the Kingdom had not arrived. By your own admission, it was His Crucifixion that ushered in His Kingdom and no, not by leave of the Devil for he is the ruler of earthly kingdoms. That is the triumph of the Church as a kingdom; it earthly is the manifestation of God’s divine will, the means by which we, the fallen creation have recourse to His forgiveness, bearing all that which befits a kingdom, not the least of which is the perfect monarch. A kingdom, awaiting the return, not the advent of its Ruler, is not made less a kingdom.
Gottle of Geer:

If triumphalism fosters pride, to deny this will do a good job of making us unable to recognise its power for evil. Evils not recognised are not guarded against, which is good for their growth - but not good for us, at all. Germany did not watch out for the growth of anti-Judaism & theories of racial superiority: so when they & other things were combined in a certain way, the result was catastrophe, for Germany, for the rest of Europe, & for a lot of the world. If we are not watchful, there is no reason why the result should not be catastrophic.

Again, to even conceive of divine Truth being the same realm of corruptibility as man-made philosophy belies a stark mistrust in its origins.
Gottle of Geer:

If it were perfect, all its prospective members would be gathered in, & no missionary work would be needed. Nor would there be a single abuse of any kind - but complaining about abuses shows the Kingdom is not “complete” or “inerrant”.

The Church is inerrant and perfect by virtue of its infallible Magisterium, and by its potential to live virtuously as a whole. Because a body is ill does not mean that it is lacking in anything necessary for its nominal operation, nor is it poorly constructed because it is wounded; both show that it is reactant to that which can do it harm. The virtue of its indefectibility is the means by which her perfection is ensured. I do not make the fool’s argument that any of us are perfect. But false ecumenism, the same that has argued against the triumphalism of the Church, has delivered to an ignorant generation that something is lacking fundamentally in the construction of the visible Church, which prevents its perfection. All that lacks in the visible Church is complete virtuous faith. That which resides outside, lacking the Sacraments and communion with the Roman Pontiff, cannot be considered in the same league.

 

[DustinsDad]

…A kingdom, awaiting the return, not the advent of its Ruler, is not made less a kingdom.
…Again, to even conceive of divine Truth being the same realm of corruptibility as man-made philosophy belies a stark mistrust in its origins.
…But false ecumenism, the same that has argued against the triumphalism of the Church, has delivered to an ignorant generation that something is lacking fundamentally in the construction of the visible Church, which prevents its perfection. All that lacks in the visible Church is complete virtuous faith. That which resides outside, lacking the Sacraments and communion with the Roman Pontiff, cannot be considered in the same league.

Great posts Miles - thanks.

Short answer to the original poster - no triumphalism isn’t intrinsically a “bad thing” if it is simply recognizing and proclaiming the One True Church for what it is - the triumph is about Christ, not us weak humans who by His grace are within His Mystical Body, the same One True Church. It is to His triumph that all are called to His One True Church - His Mystical Body. So yes, it is necessasary for missionary work.

The problem is, nowadays it seems even identifying and correctly understanding and proclaiming the One True Church as the One True Church is called “prideful” or negative “triumphalism.”

Here’s the test - if one “cringes” at the following infallibly proclaimed dogmas of the Church and instantly want to throw up a laundry list of “nuances” as “disclamers” to the truth…then one has most likely been infected with a false humility that is merely hiding an unhealthy “fear of man” rather than “fear of God.”
“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)

“We declare, we say, we define, and we pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter.” (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)

Pope Eugenius IV, A.D. 1431-1447, at Council of Florence “It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino, A.D. 1442)

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[ncjohn]

Here’s the test - if one “cringes” at the following infallibly proclaimed dogmas of the Church and instantly want to throw up a laundry list of “nuances” as “disclamers” to the truth…then one has most likely been infected with a false humility that is merely hiding an unhealthy “fear of man” rather than “fear of God.”

It must be really great to have been given the authority and the eternal wisdom to proclaim “the test”.

Since I have no idea how you’re interpreting those passages, I can’t tell if our answers might agree or not. But if one is saying that a literal understanding of them is the only interpretation and that the Church does NOT have a more nuanced understanding based on centuries of study and reflection, then I would think that one would have to admit that they have been infected with a lack of communion with the Church which does NOT espouse a literal interpretation of them. That doesn’t imply “disclaimer”; it only implies that like all living and growing organisms we develop clearer understandings and greater wisdom over time.

And no, it has nothing to do with me “fearing man” rather than “fearing God”. It has to do with having left enough of my arrogance behind to allow God to make His own judgments about whom He is going to save and how, and the Church, with its centuries of reflection, to interpret its dogmas rather than believing that my little mind needs to do so.

 

[DustinsDad]

It must be really great to have been given the authority and the eternal wisdom to proclaim “the test”.

Since I have no idea how you’re interpreting those passages, I can’t tell if our answers might agree or not. But if one is saying that a literal understanding of them is the only interpretation and that the Church does NOT have a more nuanced understanding based on centuries of study and reflection, then I would think that one would have to admit that they have been infected with a lack of communion with the Church which does NOT espouse a literal interpretation of them. That doesn’t imply “disclaimer”; it only implies that like all living and growing organisms we develop clearer understandings and greater wisdom over time.

And no, it has nothing to do with me “fearing man” rather than “fearing God”. It has to do with having left enough of my arrogance behind to allow God to make His own judgments about whom He is going to save and how, and the Church, with its centuries of reflection, to interpret its dogmas rather than believing that my little mind needs to do so.

Cringe duly noted. .

 

[MilesXpisti]

It must be really great to have been given the authority and the eternal wisdom to proclaim “the test”.

Since I have no idea how you’re interpreting those passages, I can’t tell if our answers might agree or not. But if one is saying that a literal understanding of them is the only interpretation and that the Church does NOT have a more nuanced understanding based on centuries of study and reflection, then I would think that one would have to admit that they have been infected with a lack of communion with the Church which does NOT espouse a literal interpretation of them. That doesn’t imply “disclaimer”; it only implies that like all living and growing organisms we develop clearer understandings and greater wisdom over time.

And no, it has nothing to do with me “fearing man” rather than “fearing God”. It has to do with having left enough of my arrogance behind to allow God to make His own judgments about whom He is going to save and how, and the Church, with its centuries of reflection, to interpret its dogmas rather than believing that my little mind needs to do so.

This has been another problem of mine with the post-conciliar period: the overamplification of Newmanian doctrinal development. I have no problem believing in development of doctrine, as this is seen most readily in the early Councils that defined the nature of Christ and the Godhead. My problem is when so-called development causes a binary reversal in doctrinal position. It’s one thing to develop doctrine when we don’t know the answer, as was the case of the nature of Christ. It’s another to take the contrary position. It doesn’t seem to me, as shown by the quotes from DustinsDad (and more, not excluding Leo XIII in SATIS COGNITVM¹), that they had any question about what constituted the Church, nor the fate of those willfully outside of it.

¹"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." Satis Cognitum, 9

 

[ncjohn]

This has been another problem of mine with the post-conciliar period: the overamplification of Newmanian doctrinal development. I have no problem believing in development of doctrine, as this is seen most readily in the early Councils that defined the nature of Christ and the Godhead. My problem is when so-called development causes a binary reversal in doctrinal position. It’s one thing to develop doctrine when we don’t know the answer, as was the case of the nature of Christ. It’s another to take the contrary position. It doesn’t seem to me, as shown by the quotes from DustinsDad (and more, not excluding Leo XIII in SATIS COGNITVM¹), that they had any question about what constituted the Church, nor the fate of those willfully outside of it.

¹"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." Satis Cognitum, 9

Our ability or inability to understand does not change objective reality.

There are many ways to understand the idea of being “in the Church”, including one’s personal knowledge and opportunity, and one’s experience with the Church, which can in many cases make it psychologically impossible for actual membership. The Church has not changed its doctrine that we are saved only through the Church; it has however come to a more meaningful understanding of how that might be accomplished.

Some may not like that understanding, preferring a cut and dried, black and white, in or out, clearly visible sign. Apparently the Church has come to the conclusion that God might have an ability to read souls that we mere humans don’t have and that He might be willing to go to extraordinary means to bring His beloved creations to Himself.

Given the number of times Jesus turned “conventional wisdom” on its head in showing how different God’s ways are from our ways, I’m willing to “cringe” along with the Church in allowing that God may be up to some things I don’t understand, and in some cases may not much like if given my preference. But I also hearken back to the story of Jonah, who was most dismayed to find that God was willing to save some “heathens” that Jonah really didn’t want to see saved. Given that I know of many people “outside” the Church who do a far better job than I of listening for God’s word and doing their best to follow it, I’m not going to be one to be telling God what to do with them.

Peace,

 

[MilesXpisti]

Our ability or inability to understand does not change objective reality.

There are many ways to understand the idea of being “in the Church”, including one’s personal knowledge and opportunity, and one’s experience with the Church, which can in many cases make it psychologically impossible for actual membership. The Church has not changed its doctrine that we are saved only through the Church; it has however come to a more meaningful understanding of how that might be accomplished.

You say meaningful, many others say contrary.

ncjohn:

Some may not like that understanding, preferring a cut and dried, black and white, in or out, clearly visible sign. Apparently the Church has come to the conclusion that God might have an ability to read souls that we mere humans don’t have and that He might be willing to go to extraordinary means to bring His beloved creations to Himself.

Good God, man, I’m not talking about Feeneyism. I’ve stated several times that it is those individuals that willfully remain outside the communion of the Church. Stick with us, please.

ncjohn:

Given the number of times Jesus turned “conventional wisdom” on its head in showing how different God’s ways are from our ways, I’m willing to “cringe” along with the Church in allowing that God may be up to some things I don’t understand, and in some cases may not much like if given my preference. But I also hearken back to the story of Jonah, who was most dismayed to find that God was willing to save some “heathens” that Jonah really didn’t want to see saved. Given that I know of many people “outside” the Church who do a far better job than I of listening for God’s word and doing their best to follow it, I’m not going to be one to be telling God what to do with them.

Peace,

If we cannot depend on dogmatic declarations of Tradition, then what recourse have we to the entire Christian faith.? Will we need councils every decade to re-hash and re-declare dogma? Nope, sorry. Yesterday, today, tomorrow, dogma cannot change. If a contrary declaration is offered, we must ask why.

 

[ncjohn]

You say meaningful, many others say contrary.

As I said, our ability or inabiliity to understand which is which does not change the objective reality. I simply choose to stay with how the Church is interpreting her doctrinal statements. I have no basis to accept the interpretation of anyone else.

Good God, man, I’m not talking about Feeneyism. I’ve stated several times that it is those individuals that willfully remain outside the communion of the Church. Stick with us, please.

I have no idea what you have or haven’t stated several times so I have nothing to “stay with” beyond the post I replied to. Many posters here do in fact posit Feeneyism, either trying to call it something else or claiming that there is nothing wrong with the position and that Feeney’s position was never really <wink, wink> condemned.

And again, the question goes to what “willfully” remaining outside the Church means. I have known many people who are no longer psychologically capable of identifying themselves as Catholic because of pain inflicted on them by agents of the Church. Quite frankly it was only by a tremendous infusion of grace by God that I was able to return.

If we cannot depend on dogmatic declarations of Tradition, then what recourse have we to the entire Christian faith.? Will we need councils every decade to re-hash and re-declare dogma? Nope, sorry. Yesterday, today, tomorrow, dogma cannot change. If a contrary declaration is offered, we must ask why.

And again, I question the assumption that there is any “contrary” declaration whatsoever. I personally have no problem reconciling the statements that have been posted with the Church’s position. I certainly have no way of knowing what your positions are and don’t claim this of you, but I have seen many here who clearly want to find contradictions to justify a desire to reject the Council or to more legitimize their preference for pre-conciliar traditions.

I personally see it as a seamless garment, with understanding growing over time. Yes there are difference in some “small t” traditions, but the Tradition hasn’t changed. And even the traditions are really more about preferences in worship styles than they are about doctrinal differences, unless one is of the belief that Quo Primum really does forbid any change in the liturgy. But somehow, wrapped up in all of that, there seems to be this belief that one can’t accept the doctrinal clarifications and simultaneously cling to the older liturgical preferences. I find that very sad, as I find many of the older traditions admirable and cling to some of them myself.

At any rate, I’ll leave it at that as this is all off topic and I’ve expressed my views on the topic probably as fully as I can or need to.

Peace,

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Jesus had a triumphal entry into Jerusalem, why shouldn’t His Vicar have a triumphal entry?

 

[chrisb]

Thy arrogancy hath deceived thee, and the pride of thy heart: O thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, and endeavourest to lay hold on the height of the hill : but though thou shouldst make thy nest as high as an eagle, I will bring thee down from thence, saith the Lord.

An ample illustration for…

Where pride is, there also shall be reproach: but where humility is, there also is wisdom.

Triumphalism, presumption, any form of assumption of one’s place with the Lord is inherently Prideful and thus sinful and has no place in the House of the Lord.

 

[DustinsDad]

…, presumption, any form of assumption of one’s place with the Lord is inherently Prideful and thus sinful and has no place in the House of the Lord.

Of ourselves individually, you are absolutely coorect.

But of the Church Herself - this wouldn’t apply. We know the Church’s place with the Lord.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If we accept the OP’s original definition of “triumphalism,” then I don’t see how we can fail to be triumphalistic because we believe that there is only ONE true Church and that objectively, salvation is mediated to the world by Her. I don’t know a whole lot of religions that don’t have that kind of triumphalism to one degree or another (even those that say everyone gets to heaven would also say that their way was the best way, which has got to be triumphalistic). I don’t think there’s anything wrong with believing this as we MUST believe it as Catholics. I’m troubled by the attitude of “we’re number 1” and “nyah, nyah, nyah” that I often hear in these fora. That’s usually what* I* mean by triumphalism, but whatever it is, IT, at least, is intrinsically bad. We have what we have by Grace and none of this would have ever occured to or come to any of us except by Grace.

 

[chrisb]

Of ourselves individually, you are absolutely coorect.

But of the Church Herself - this wouldn’t apply. We know the Church’s place with the Lord.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Grace and Peace,

Where pride is, there also shall be reproach: but where humility is, there also is wisdom. - Proverbs 11:2 DRB

I’ve read many of your posts and I find you to be a reasonable man so I mean no disrespect at all but if the Church speaks Herself it is through Her Treasuries of Holy Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Both are very clear concerning the “fruit by which we will be known”…

I don’t see Triumphalism among them. It is not an attribute of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[DustinsDad]

Grace and Peace,

Where pride is, there also shall be reproach: but where humility is, there also is wisdom. - Proverbs 11:2 DRB

I’ve read many of your posts and I find you to be a reasonable man so I mean no disrespect at all but if the Church speaks Herself it is through Her Treasuries of Holy Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Both are very clear concerning the “fruit by which we will be known”…

I don’t see Triumphalism among them. It is not an attribute of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Thanks for the kind words…and no offense taken at all.

I guess it all goes to how one defines “triumphalism”. To me, it’s merely acknowleding the truth that Christ established His Church and that the gates of Hell won’t prevail against it. That Church is the Catholic Church.

I guess the opposite of my definition of “triumphalism” would be “religous indifferentism” - saying that one religion is as good as another.

On the individual and personal side, we can never be “triumphalistic” about our own salvation. We can be hopeful and confident in God’s grace and mercy - knowing our full and total reliance on that grace and mercy to see us through to the end…so that we are in the busom of His Church - His Mystical Body - when we draw our last breath.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[chrisb]

Thanks for the kind words…and no offense taken at all.

I guess it all goes to how one defines “triumphalism”. To me, it’s merely acknowleding the truth that Christ established His Church and that the gates of Hell won’t prevail against it. That Church is the Catholic Church.

I guess the opposite of my definition of “triumphalism” would be “religous indifferentism” - saying that one religion is as good as another.

On the individual and personal side, we can never be “triumphalistic” about our own salvation. We can be hopeful and confident in God’s grace and mercy - knowing our full and total reliance on that grace and mercy to see us through to the end…so that we are in the busom of His Church - His Mystical Body - when we draw our last breath.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Grace and Peace,

You seem to be talking about ‘Zeal’ but I think words have meaning and ‘triumphal’ is, in my humble opinion, not a proper analogy for ‘Zeal’ but I honestly liked your post and I’m not trying to nit-pick I just personally don’t like all the baggage that comes with the word ‘triumphalism’.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[thiscatholickid]

Triumphalism was brought up in the papal tiara thread. Since I didn’t want to get too off-topic there, I’ll ask the questions here in a new thread.

According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, triumphalism is defined as: “the doctrine, attitude, or belief that one religious creed is superior to all others.”

Technically speaking, triumphalism pertains to ideas, not people or individuals. One may belong to a superior football team, for example, yet be a horrible player…but that does not necessarily mean that the team is inferior. The team would be superior despite the inferior player.

Moreover, triumphalism does not disparage others or take glee in the inferiority of the positions of others.

Is Catholic triumphalism intrinsically a bad thing?

Would missionary work even be possible without triumphalism?

Catholic Triumphalism? Id say its just faith.

If you really believe that there is only one God and one Church, you have to believe your religion (or church) is superior.

For me to obey my God, who says that he is above all idols made of hand, I have to conclude that my Church (which is his personal organization basically) is superior to others.

Now I can be polite about it, and admire aspects of other religions, but it is a basic principle of monotheism that all other deities are false, and so are obviously inferior.

No matter how pious they look, a buddhist bowing down to a statue is doing absolutely nothing. How can a faithful Roman Catholic say our religions are equal, if that Catholic really believes that his God created the heavens, the earth, the wood for that statue, and the aforementioned buddhist.

Its an issue of faith, not pride.