Is Catholic triumphalism intrinsically a bad thing?

[Freshman88]

This all reminds of a video I recently saw on the internet.

It was a video in response to a comment by Ann Coulter when she said something like, “yes, Jews should convert to Christianity so that they can become perfected”

I don’t like Ann Coulter very much, but her statement was true. We can only become perfected through Christ.

What was interesting was the music video made in response. I could not understand it because the Jewish author of the video kept singing “perfect me, make me like you” [you = ann coulter].

To get to the point - I saw nothing wrong in triumphing Christianity - but it was interesting to note that without a shot of humility - the statement is interpreted as a statement of pride.

So I guess the cure is that while we claim the superiority of the Church, we should always juxtapose it with the short commings and inferiority of ourselves. We should make it clear that us believers need the Church so badly because we are fallen beings.

Great sinners need a great cure. ERGO - it can be an act of humility to triumph the Church!

 

[MilesXpisti]

No, no, no! I am speaking only of papal triumphalism. It has nothing to do with architecture much less anything to do with selling out our Catholic heritage. My family suffered for their faith (Acadian [Cajun] and Irish)

Papal triumphalism is wrong. Do you really want to see Benedict seated on the sedes gestatoria hauled into St. Peter’s on the shoulders of six men being fanned by ostrich feather fans with the papal tiara on his head? After Jean Paul II? I am old enough to remember John XIII being carried as described above into the opening of the Second Vatican Council. We saw it via Telstar - the very first satellite capable of broadcasting from Italy to the US. How can you justify that in the face of Paul VI laying the papal tiara on the altar at the conclusion of V II?

The Holy Father was a secular as well as spiritual ruler until the end of the 19th century. The servant of the servants of God should be humble. Is it intrinsically wrong? Probably not. On the other hand, do we really want to give our fundamentalist brethren ammunition to throw at us? That’s one point.

My second point is that Paul VI and Jean Paul II visited the US. There were no sedes gestatoria or papal tiara in any of those visits. The papal tiara was on display at the Vatican exhibit in the New Orleans world fair in 1984.

Let me be blunt. We have those on these forums those who think that accessing our patrimony of sacred music is dead wrong. If Ubi Caritas is wrong…Oy!

Considering these were the same men responsible for the degradation of the Sacred Liturgy, I can easily dismiss it as self-indulgent pseudo-piety. Oh, I’m giving up something that’s worldly! I still live in a gold and marble palace, dress in silk every day, and am flanked by dozens of attendants, but God forbid that I wear a time-honored symbol of my office. Give me a break. What’s next, we should exhort our Holy Fathers to kiss Qu’rans? Receive smoke exorcisms from South American brujas and allow animal sacrifices on Holy Altars?

 

[thecoach]

But is Catholic triumphalism intrinsically a bad thing?

If so, how?

I think it is, triumphalism itself has an intrinsic danger. Look at Nazism, Communism, etc. All thought they were superior as well.

 

[MilesXpisti]

I think it is, triumphalism itself has an intrinsic danger. Look at Nazism, Communism, etc. All thought they were superior as well.

You’re equating the Divine Faith of the Son of God with a Godless philosophy and an patchworked Aryo-centric mythology?

 

[Genesis315]

The triumphalism we are to avoid is not a firm belief in the truth–that is as humble as it can be (St. Francis de Sales defines humility as acknowledgment of the truth). What we have to be careful about is this (notice, the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium teaches we do have an exalted status, but then adds how we should act accordingly):

“All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.”

St. Paul similarly admonishes us:

Titus 3:2 To speak evil of no man, not to be litigious, but gentle: shewing all mildness towards all men. 3 For we ourselves also were some time unwise, incredulous, erring, slaves to divers desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But when the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared: 5 Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost; 6 Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour:

 

[Freshman88]

I think it is, triumphalism itself has an intrinsic danger. Look at Nazism, Communism, etc. All thought they were superior as well.

As a Catholic who had family in gulags and in Nazi concentration camp and in slave-labour farms, I take serious offense to that.

In fact, it was while in Church that my grandmother was taken and brought to a hellish gulag in Northern Kazakstan. It was her belief in a Superior truth that got her through that mess.

You cannot draw any kind of comparison between the Church and Nazism / Communism. Here’s why. Communism was founded by Marx and Lenin - Men. Nazism was founded too, by men.

What makes the Church superior was that it was founded by God himself, in the flesh. The Church is vastly superior because it contains the fullness of the Truth - something Nazism and communism could never do.

 

[Genesis315]

The difference between a humble belief in the truth and a prideful kind of triumphalism is manifested in compassion versus contempt. The humble man has compassion on those enslaved by errors. The sinfully triumphalistic man has contempt for them.

The compassionate man is a missionary who reaches out with Christ to lift up all men to share in the exalted position he has already received.

The sinfully triumphalistic man stands apart from poor sinners and those in darkness and talks disparagingly about them while doing little if anything to actually help them.

 

[Freshman88]

The difference between a humble belief in the truth and a prideful kind of triumphalism is manifested in compassion versus contempt. The humble man has compassion on those enslaved by errors. The sinfully triumphalistic man has contempt for them.

The compassionate man is a missionary who reaches out with Christ to lift up all men to share in the exalted position he has already received.

The sinfully triumphalistic man stands apart from poor sinners and those in darkness and talks disparagingly about them while doing little if anything to actually help them.

. I agree entirely with your assessment but…

The more correct of the two views that you have shown would still fit the definition of triumphalism: triumphalism is defined as: "the doctrine, attitude, or belief that one religious creed is superior to all others

Therefore, Triumphalism is a good thing! however, it can easily be abused - but such is the nature of so many other goods.

 

[thecoach]

You’re equating the Divine Faith of the Son of God with a Godless philosophy and an patchworked Aryo-centric mythology?

they both tie together in terms of the discussion regarding the idea of triumphalism.

 

[thecoach]

As a Catholic who had family in gulags and in Nazi concentration camp and in slave-labour farms, I take serious offense to that.

In fact, it was while in Church that my grandmother was taken and brought to a hellish gulag in Northern Kazakstan. It was her belief in a Superior truth that got her through that mess.

You cannot draw any kind of comparison between the Church and Nazism / Communism. Here’s why. Communism was founded by Marx and Lenin - Men. Nazism was founded too, by men.

What makes the Church superior was that it was founded by God himself, in the flesh. The Church is vastly superior because it contains the fullness of the Truth - something Nazism and communism could never do.

take offense to what? we are talking about the idea and term triumphalism. are you saying the two example sI put forth did not think they were superior?

 

[Freshman88]

take offense to what? we are talking about the idea and term triumphalism. are you saying the two example sI put forth did not think they were superior?

The fact that you dare equate the Ancient faith of the Apostles, the Church of the Risen King, the Holy See with something as EVIL, HIDEOUS and SCORNFUL as the plague of communism and nazism.

Have you no sympathy at all? I have heard of such horrendous stories of the atrocities from people who went through that hell, people I love dearly - then you dare to keep pestering forward with some kind of dumbfounded ignorance?

The Triumphalism of the Church is True and Holy. That you compare such a venerable act to something so hidious IS scandalous. If only you knew what barbarism that my grandparents and great uncles and aunts went through… then perhaps you would think twice about comparing that to Holy Mother Church.

Thanks for proving your charity, once again. Though, I won’t be expecting an apology, trying to get that from you is like pulling teeth.

 

[Freshman88]

To clarify myself even further… though I think its blatently obvious.

What made Nazism evil, was not its triumphalism. It was its beliefs. Beliefs that said I was part of an inferior race, living on German land, and suitable for nothing but slave labour and the gas chambers.

This is a problem people have in general today. Everyone uses the examples of nazis and communism so freely that it is without regard of what equating that evil to actually implies.

 

[Cathryn]

I think it is something like the Church Militant here on earth putting aside our military symbolisms. We don’t sing about things like armies of youth fighting for Christ the King, the cross our only sword. In the late fifties and early sixties this was common in Catholic schools and the Church at large. The Church Triumphant are those in heaven, and there is no real purpose in the Holy Father putting crowns or tiaras on his head. We seem to have entered a time when humility is needed more than triumphalism.

An army of youth flying the standards of Truth,

We’re fighting for Christ, the Lord.

Heads lifted high, Catholic Action our cry,

And the Cross our only sword.

On Earth’s battlefield never a vantage we’ll yield

As dauntlessly on we swing.

Comrades true, dare and do ‘neath the Queen’s white and blue,

For our flag, for our faith, for Christ (our) King![1]

 

[ncjohn]

The difference between a humble belief in the truth and a prideful kind of triumphalism is manifested in compassion versus contempt. The humble man has compassion on those enslaved by errors. The sinfully triumphalistic man has contempt for them.

The compassionate man is a missionary who reaches out with Christ to lift up all men to share in the exalted position he has already received.

The sinfully triumphalistic man stands apart from poor sinners and those in darkness and talks disparagingly about them while doing little if anything to actually help them.

Beautifully put. And when it’s all said and done, as the article I previously posted mentioned, “triumphalism” is used almost exclusively to mean the second. I cannot recall a single instance where I have ever heard the term used to mean something positive.

 

[Hesychios]

Is Catholic triumphalism intrinsically a bad thing?

If Triumphalism becomes an obstacle to the work of evangelism…it is a very bad thing. It is a form of pride, after all, and standing before God what have we to be proud of?

Just because we were lucky by accident of birth to be included in this religion? Or, we “took a chance” on it and converted because it just seemed right to our little pea brains at the time?

I have found Triumphalism applied more often than not by people who are really unprepared to defend their Faith in intelligent discourse. It’s like shouting from behind Holy Mother Church’s big skirt. It is something for less mature Christians, hubris really.

Thus, they drive others away from the message, not draw them toward it.

Would missionary work even be possible without triumphalism?

I reallly don’t get your frame of reference at all.

Mission work is to save souls. That is difficult to do when one wears pride on his shirtsleeve.

Michael

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You’re equating the Divine Faith of the Son of God with a Godless philosophy and an patchworked Aryo-centric mythology?

I doubt he was doing that - but the point was a profound one, because the Faith, which is not an ideology, can function as one - it can be used by us to enslave others, instead of being a means of setting them free. We are sinners, are we not ? Then there is no reason why the Faith, & everything else in the Church, cannot become a means of our sinful self-assertion - which has its root in pride, in delusions of superiority. If the Bible can be a means of sin, then the Church, which like the Bible is God-given, can also be used to do evil. For both are given to sinful men.​

St Paul in Romans 7 describes how the Law, which was holy, had deadly effects even so - AFAIK, this is not less true of the Faith. Of course it’s good, & wonderful, & a blessing - that is precisely why it can become such a terrible curse: the worst kind of corruption, is the corruption of what is very very good.

Nazism is in that sense a warning to us, of the appalling evil that an ideology can do - especially if it is one based on ideas of superiority. There are many Judaeo-Christian ideas in Nazism - what is the thousand-year Reich, if not a form of the thousand-year kingdom of the Messiah in Rev. 20 ? Human sinfulness has a terrible power to pervert even the holiest of things - & thoughts of superiority do not guard us from this; self-denial, detachment, humility & above all the self-sacrificing Charity of Christ, can To Him alone belongs all Glory for ever

 

[thecoach]

To clarify myself even further… though I think its blatently obvious.

What made Nazism evil, was not its triumphalism. It was its beliefs. Beliefs that said I was part of an inferior race, living on German land, and suitable for nothing but slave labour and the gas chambers.

This is a problem people have in general today. Everyone uses the examples of nazis and communism so freely that it is without regard of what equating that evil to actually implies.

triumphalism IS a belief. keep up.

 

[MilesXpisti]

I doubt he was doing that - but the point was a profound one, because the Faith, which is not an ideology, can function as one - it can be used by us to enslave others, instead of being a means of setting them free. We are sinners, are we not ? Then there is no reason why the Faith, & everything else in the Church, cannot become a means of our sinful self-assertion - which has its root in pride, in delusions of superiority. If the Bible can be a means of sin, then the Church, which like the Bible is God-given, can also be used to do evil. For both are given to sinful men.​

St Paul in Romans 7 describes how the Law, which was holy, had deadly effects even so - AFAIK, this is not less true of the Faith. Of course it’s good, & wonderful, & a blessing - that is precisely why it can become such a terrible curse: the worst kind of corruption, is the corruption of what is very very good.

Nazism is in that sense a warning to us, of the appalling evil that an ideology can do - especially if it is one based on ideas of superiority. There are many Judaeo-Christian ideas in Nazism - what is the thousand-year Reich, if not a form of the thousand-year kingdom of the Messiah in Rev. 20 ? Human sinfulness has a terrible power to pervert even the holiest of things - & thoughts of superiority do not guard us from this; self-denial, detachment, humility & above all the self-sacrificing Charity of Christ, can To Him alone belongs all Glory for ever

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised; this is the sort of relativist drivel that was ushered in by the Council. Sorry, but we’ve tried the ways of collegiality and sensitivity, getting in touch with our spirit animals and holding hands at Mass. It has not netted us souls, merely empty pews.

We are to display our faith as a caravan’s wares? Something humble and colorless and non-threatening. Or is it the sword that gleams bright as the sun, that separates father and son and mother and daughter? Do we simply declare a Church, where one is welcome but unneeded? Or do we declare the Kingdom of God, without which there is no salvation?

The only perversion in triumphalism is the idea that it is an ongoing process, just as the perversion of Christianity is the demotion of Christ to the role of a social activist. Christus Rex is He Whose return we pray for. Christ’s Kingdom is here. It is complete and inerrant. Are there those outside of it? Of course. Those who do not know it, and those who do not wish to. The eternal end for each of those is known.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised; this is the sort of relativist drivel that was ushered in by the Council. Sorry, but we’ve tried the ways of collegiality and sensitivity, getting in touch with our spirit animals and holding hands at Mass. It has not netted us souls, merely empty pews.

• 1. Where is the relativism ?
• 1. V2 is a legitimate Ecumenical Council, & we do not have the liberty to pick & choose.
• 1. To do so is to design the Christian faith to fit one’s own sinfulness; a faith fitted for our sins, can’t rebuke them
• 1. I said nothing to encourage the abuses you mention

We are to display our faith as a caravan’s wares? Something humble and colorless and non-threatening.

AFAIK, Christ did not think that humility was so bad an idea - I believe that He was rather in favour of it ​

He wasn’t alone, either - St. Paul agreed, as did St.Peter. So did Isaiah.

• As it is not humility that separates us from God, but pride, arrogance & self-sufficiency;
• & both Testaments agree in condemning such attitudes;
• as disobedience is the fruit of pride, not of humility;
• & Christ set us an example, by “humbling Himself to die upon a Cross”

• I think we have plenty of reasons to be humble. But not the slightest reason to be proud.

If we could benefit God, by giving to Him some good of which He was in no sense the Author, so as to put Him in our debt, we might have a glimmer of a right to admire ourselves. We cannot, because we have no good of which He is not the Creator - including the Faith, & every other created thing, in all respects, without exception. “[We] have nothing good, that [we] have not received” - so says St.Paul. So all boasting is excluded - as he also says.

Humility is threatening - to self-esteem, self-praise, egotism, delusions of superiority, arrogance, pride. Pride is a sign of weakness, not of strength. It protects our sinful & fallen egos because they are weak enough to need protection, from God, Who is Alone Strong

Those who think humility is weak, make the same mistake as those who think purity is weak. Sin is weak, & weakens: not grace. To love, takes strength; to love as Christ has loved us sinners, takes infinite strength. As for superiority - Christ “made Himself of no reputation”: He did not boast of Himself. So how can we boast of His gifts, which are less than He is, & are corruptible ?

Pride is easier than humility - no wonder we fall for it. To grow in humility is not easy - it takes time, & we live in an impatient age. And it is painful. That can’t make pridefulness the way of Christ. He never recommends it.

So much for the rejection of superiority being “humble and colorless and non-threatening”

Or is it the sword that gleams bright as the sun, that separates father and son and mother and daughter? Do we simply declare a Church, where one is welcome but unneeded? Or do we declare the Kingdom of God, without which there is no salvation?

The only perversion in triumphalism is the idea that it is an ongoing process, just as the perversion of Christianity is the demotion of Christ to the role of a social activist. Christus Rex is He Whose return we pray for. Christ’s Kingdom is here.

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.​

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.

The Kingdom has begun to be present - it is not confined to the visible communion of the CC. It is not fully present, because He has not yet returned. It is not perfect, because its members are not perfect - far from it ! You may be - I know I’m not

It is complete and inerrant.

Then it is sinless & all its members are free or error, in teaching, in faith, in everyday life, in every decision.​

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”.

Are there those outside of it? Of course. Those who do not know it, and those who do not wish to. The eternal end for each of those is known.

 

[MilesXpisti]

1. Where is the relativism ?

The relativism stems from the alteration of Catholic identity so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the heretic, the schismatic or “the separated brethren.” The deconstruction of the external mark of Church so that others, most of whom have absolutely no respect for our divinely revealed doctrine, have something less of a culture shock.
Gottle of Geer:

• 1. V2 is a legitimate Ecumenical Council, & we do not have the liberty to pick & choose.
• 1. To do so is to design the Christian faith to fit one’s own sinfulness; a faith fitted for our sins, can’t rebuke them

I do not debate whether John XXIII and his successor had the authority to call the Council, or its declarations. Merely the manner in which the lesser hierarchy chose to implement it. If they bore the charism of infallibility then we would have a problem. Thanks be to God, they do not.
Gottle of Geer:

• 1. I said nothing to encourage the abuses you mention

AFAIK, Christ did not think that humility was so bad an idea - I believe that He was rather in favour of it ​

Gottle of Geer:

He wasn’t alone, either - St. Paul agreed, as did St.Peter. So did Isaiah.

• As it is not humility that separates us from God, but pride, arrogance & self-sufficiency;
• & both Testaments agree in condemning such attitudes;
• as disobedience is the fruit of pride, not of humility;
• & Christ set us an example, by “humbling Himself to die upon a Cross”

• I think we have plenty of reasons to be humble. But not the slightest reason to be proud.

Certainly unfounded pride, borne of a belief of an innate superiority is a problem. But I’m not talking about such a concept. My personal involvement with triumphalism centers around my joy at having attained share in the Divine Sonship through full communion with the Church. Am I to say that God joys in the animal sacrifices of the animists or the fire-light chantings of neo-Pagans in the barest fraction that he joys in the communion of the faithful, just to make others feel better? That is indifferentialism at its worst.
Gottle of Geer:

Those who think humility is weak, make the same mistake as those who think purity is weak. Sin is weak, & weakens: not grace. To love, takes strength; to love as Christ has loved us sinners, takes infinite strength. As for superiority - Christ “made Himself of no reputation”: He did not boast of Himself. So how can we boast of His gifts, which are less than He is, & are corruptible ?

Personal humility is becoming of the Christian, this is obvious for it is not his own merits that have sanctified him in the eyes of God. But is humility to the detriment of the confession of the divine Truth just? No, it is nothing other than the false piety of a man wishing to be thought well of others.
Gottle of Geer:

Pride is easier than humility - no wonder we fall for it. To grow in humility is not easy - it takes time, & we live in an impatient age. And it is painful. That can’t make pridefulness the way of Christ. He never recommends it.

If pride is easier than humility, then compromise is easier still than pride, for it lets both winner and loser feel as though nothing is lost, giving false pride to both; the greater feels kind, the lesser undiminished and great damage is caused to both. Christ did exhort us to humility for the sake of our own souls, but He also declared that He alone was the whole Truth, and that the Truth is contained in His Church; this is the root of triumphalism.

TBC