Volume > Issue > Letter to the Editor: October 1994

October 1994

Mod-Catholics Driving Me to Fundamentalism

I read the letter to the editor (July-Aug. 1994) by Kathy Butzerin, a sister Seattleite, about the problems in the Catholic Church here in Seattle. She is correct that many parishes have gone New Age. They teach pantheism, Buddhist and Hindu precepts, and Sufi and pa­gan approaches. They do this subtly sometimes, as she says, and overtly when they can. I am being driven away.

I am increasingly finding fel­lowship with Protestant “funda­mentalists” who adhere to our creed. They are not all uncultured. And they often have delightful music and spirited worship which is akin to the new liturgies in our own Church.

Mariel Strauss

Lenoir-Rhyne College

Seattle, Washington

No Excuses for Irreverence

Regarding Jan Smith’s letter to the editor (July-Aug. 1994) wherein irreverence at Mass is seemingly ex­cused with the claim that “our God is life — noisy [and] boisterous”: If one were to do a character study of God as we know Him in the Bible and through manifestations to the saints, one would find a completely consistent pattern: Nowhere is there any indication that He is “noisy” and “boisterous.”

As for the reverence due Him in Mass, I’d like to quote from The Blessed Eucharist by Fr. Michael Müller: “First, I will propose the ex­ample of the Angels. St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom testify to having seen at the time of Mass, or when the Blessed Sacrament was exposed, many hosts of Angels in human form, clothed with white garments and standing round the altar as soldiers stand before their king. But what was their attitude and deportment? Their heads were bowed, their faces covered, their hands crossed, and the whole body so profoundly inclined as to express the deepest sense of their own un­worthiness to appear before the Di­vine Majesty. Oh, would we but think of this! The Angels, those pure spirits, shrink before the Infi­nite Holiness of God, and we allow vain, worldly and even sinful thoughts to insinuate themselves into our minds in His Presence!

“The Angels tremble before His Greatness, and we fear not to talk and laugh in His Presence! The Angels, those princes of Heaven, are all humility and mod­esty, and we, the dust of the earth and miserable sinners, all imperti­nence and pride! The Angels veil their faces before His splendor, and we do not even so much as cast down our eyes, but rudely stare and gaze around! The Angels bow down to the earth, and we will not bend our knee! The Angels, full of awe, fold their hands upon their breasts, and we allow ourselves every free­dom of attitude and movement! Oh, what a subject of confusion! What humiliating reflections!”

Arlene Saiki

Great Neck, New York

Not Since 1928

Regarding Robert Coles’s col­umn “On Divorce” (July-Aug. 1994): I haven’t heard such a sermon since 1928. I am 79.

E.B. Detchemendy

Huntsville, Alabama

A Baptist Against Private Interpretation

I thoroughly enjoyed Peter Kreeft’s trialogue between C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther, and Thomas Aquinas (July-Aug. 1994). Even as a Baptist, I found myself agreeing with Aquinas more often than not. Regarding Kreeft’s argument about private interpretation: As a Baptist I am a Protestant of Protes­tants. Yet I hate the private inter­pretation rampant in my tradition. I hate it in my own ministry. I ago­nize over it weekly in my preach­ing and teaching. I suppose I could throw myself into the arms of the Roman Magisterium and be done with my burden. But what if my burden is a cross I must bear? Each week as I prepare my sermon I must pick up my cross and deny myself by repenting of my private interpretation. To do this I must submit to the Scriptures and the historic teachings of the Church. For me to wholly submit to the Roman Church when I know good and well that some of her teach­ings are wrong would be bad enough. But to join Rome in order to be able to give my cross away, so that I could bask in the false glory of being right, would be cheap grace. I will not accuse Kreeft of thinking that he is always right just because he is a Catholic. I as­sume that he and all true Catholics find that seeking to know the truth is a struggle. The sin of private in­terpretation and the cross of re­pentance required to seek the truth is a permanent, ubiquitous di­lemma, and not just a Protestant one. All Christian teachers must grapple with it, as the canonized Aquinas did, until the Lord re­turns. On that note I heartily agree with Kreeft’s eschatology. If the Red Sox ever win the World Series he and I will both be looking for the end of the world. By my figuring, the millennium may break out right in front of the Green Monster. But then, that may be nothing more than private interpretation.

I love the NOR for many reasons. I appreciate your prolife stance sans right-wing politics. I love the vigor­ous, orthodox thinking it brings to my door once a month. I am very glad that Robert Coles is back!

The Rev. David Hansen

Belgrade, Montana

Hear Kreeft 'Do' Lewis, Aquinas & Luther

I read Peter Kreeft’s “A Trialogue with C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther, & Thomas Aquinas” (July-Aug. 1994) with delight. Your readers maybe interested to know that this trialogue was first “performed” by Kreeft in November 1993 at the an­nual Aquinas-Luther Conference at Lenoir-Rhyne College. Kreeft’s per­formance is vintage material, alter­nating between the British accent of his Lewis, the New York Italian (Mafia) accent of his Aquinas, and the German (Gestapo) accent of his Luther.

Anyone interested in hearing Kreeft “do” Lewis, Aquinas, and Luther may order audio or video tapes ($6 or $12, respectively, plus $1.50 P & H) and receive informa­tion about our upcoming Aquinas-Luther Conference (Nov. 2-4, 1994) by writing me at the following address.

Philip Blosser

Hickory NC 28603

Ecumenically Unclear

Peter Kreeft’s “Trialogue” piece on Lewis, Aquinas, and Luther in your July-August 1994 issue was brilliantly done. There are, however, points where he could have more clearly explained Catho­lic teaching instead of articulating the ecumenically preferred refor­mulation of it.

The first point is in regard to the doctrine of sola fide. Simply put, the Church has consistently taught that this doctrine is, in ef­fect, a non sequitur because the faith at issue is the saving faith that determines man’s eternal destiny. And saving faith, as Paul points out, is faith that works through love (Gal. 5:6; cf. Rom. 13:8-10). Indeed, he goes so far as to say that even if we have all faith so as to re­move mountains, but have not love, we are nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). Moreover, Matthew stresses that only those who persevere in such faith until the end will be saved (Mt. 24:13).

It follows, therefore, that a genuine saving faith in Jesus Christ cannot be without good works, which is why James says that faith without works is dead (Jas. 2:24­-26), and why the Church has al­ways taught that salvation is by faith and good works. Thus, anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as his per­sonal Lord and Savior, but fails to do the will of the Father, does not have the faith that leads to everlast­ing life (cf. Mt. 7:21-27). What Kreeft should have emphasized more clearly is the Catholic Church’s biblical teaching that faith “alone” without good works is sim­ply not enough (cf. Jas. 2:14-17).

The second point at which Kreeft’s exposition falls short is in his treatment of sola gratia. To say that “grace is everything” is of course true in the sense that nothing whatever is either brought into existence or remains in existence except by the grace of God. But within that context Christians must not lose sight of the fact that God willed to bring into existence three human at­tributes by means of which He created us in His own image: the ability to reason, to love, and to will. Why did He give us these attributes? So that when He reveals Himself to us, we will have to will­fully choose to know Him, to love Him, and to do His will (cf. 1 Jn. 2:17).

That is why, although it is true that we are saved by grace alone, it is also true that no one is saved who refuses to do God’s will (Mt. 7:21-27). And any definition of grace that negates man’s God-given ability to refuse to do His will is itself a denial of God’s grace because it is a rejection of the fact that it is He, and He alone, who has enabled mankind to reject Him. So how are we to do God’s will? Only by freely choosing to follow Jesus Christ with a faith that works through love (Mt. 25:31-46; cf. 1 Jn. 3:17-18, 23). And how can we be assured of our salvation? Only by persevering in this saving faith until the end (Mt. 24:13; cf. 2 Cor. 5:10).

Lloyd M. Hysan

College Park, Maryland

You May Also Enjoy

Her Mamas Were Prolife

No “smooth operator” would ever discuss abortion on a first date. But then I’d been…

A Virus, a Crisis

The headline in The New York Times said it all: “[Pope] Francis Says Contraception Can…

Letter to the Editor: May 2005

Jesuits and abortions... More cancelled subscriptions... Dan Brown: With a little more imagination... The Church Milquetoast... Catholic immigrants won't save the U.S. church... No longer a conservative Catholic...