The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Authors say church got it wrong by emphasizing crucifixion
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
SAVING PARADISE: HOW CHRISTIANITY TRADED LOVE OF THIS WORLD FOR CRUCIFIXION AND EMPIRE
by Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker
Beacon Press,592 pages, $34.95
"It took Jesus a thousand years to die. Images of his corpse did not appear in churches until the tenth century."
Those are the provocative opening sentences of the new book, Saving Paradise: How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire (Beacon Press), by Protestant scholars Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker.
Saving Paradise turns upside down the history of the church's view of Jesus' crucifixion and its stress on the importance of suffering. The authors attempt to show that for the first thousand years of its existence, the Christian church placed much more emphasis on the resurrection and paradise than the crucifixion.
Before the 11th century, Brock and Parker found, Christian imagery portrayed Jesus alive -- teaching and healing and living in this world. At first, the authors were stunned when they discovered the dearth of crucifixion images in Mediterranean churches, especially given their importance to centuries of later doctrine.
Brock, an ordained Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) minister and director of Faith Voices for the Common Good, and Parker, president of Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkeley, Calif., are also co-authors of the critically acclaimed book, Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering and the Search for What Saves Us. Parker has dual standing as an ordained minister in both the United Methodist Church and the Unitarian Universalist Association.
Expanding on themes in Proverbs of Ashes, Brock and Parker argue in Saving Paradise, which includes 90 pages of footnotes, that the Christian church of the first millennium never stressed that Jesus' suffering on the cross was necessary for the salvation of humanity.
In Saving Paradise, they attempt to reveal that the early Christian community did not so much draw inspiration from suffering and the next world, but from the here and now, from earthly life and a vision of paradise.
"During their first millennium, Christians filled their sanctuaries with images of Christ ... as a shepherd, a teacher, a healer, an enthroned god; he is an infant, a youth, and a bearded elder. But he is never dead," the book says.
"When he appears with the cross, he stands in front of it, serene, resurrected. The world around him is ablaze with beauty. These are images of paradise -- paradise in this world, permeated and blessed by the presence of God. But once Jesus perished, dying was virtually all he seemed able to do."
The authors tackle what they consider the subversion of the Christian message -- exemplified by the ninth-century Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne, who instituted the death penalty for conquered people who refused to convert.
After Charlemagne, killing, suffering and dying in the name of Christ began to represent the highest honor for Christians, the book maintains.
Brock and Parker argue that Charlemagne's attitude of conquest remains an undercurrent in some countries' foreign policy, tying it into modern-day wars and imperialism.
By re-emphasizing early Christians' focus on paradise, on the kingdom of God on Earth, the authors are convinced they are reclaiming authentic "traditional" Christianity.
For instance, even though the 13th century monk, Francis of Assisi, is now admired as the patron saint of animals, the authors argue that his love of suffering marked an epochal downturn in the history of Christian theology.
When they cite how Francis of Assisi taught that "perfect joy (is) to share in the suffering of the world as Christ did," they say it was a sign of how far the Christian church had turned from promoting images of paradise and enjoyment of this earth.
Instead, Saving Paradisesays Francis was fueled by a burning desire to be martyred, to be "torn limb from limb." He brought that belief, they maintain, to his support of the Crusades, which aimed to convert Muslims by the sword.
Alternatively, Brock and Parker urge readers to see church history in a new light, with an eye toward social justice. They call upon readers to "rekindle Christian traditions that hold fast to love and thereby teach Christian people how, in the midst of horror and tragedy and loss, to resist violence, honor the earth, and to humanize life."
Section:
I. Book Reviews 
It's about time we got back
It's about time we got back to this. To enjoy being Christian, wow, what a great idea. With this in mind we should find it much easier to love one another in return, even love the rest of humanity as they are our family too.
The statement in the review
The statement in the review that St. Francis supported the Crusades is completely wrong. Not only did Francis fail to support the Crusades, he did every thing he could to undermine them. He went to Egypt to try to convince the Crusaders to lay down their arms. Before a big attack that was planned for the morning, Francis told them to desert and return home. He also predicted that the battle would be lost, which it was. Then he went on to see the Sultan of Egypt and tried to persuade him to convert to Christianity and thus end the Crusades. Failing in this attempt, he returned to Italy.
He forbade all of his followers, lay as well as clerical, to bear arms or swear fealty to a feudal lord, which was what one did before joining the Crusades. Because the pope had given a full plenary indulgence to anyone who joined a Crusade or supported it with money, Francis went to Rome to ask the pope to give the same full indulgence to anyone who visited churches. At first shocked by this request, the pope agreed when the "little poor man" insisted.
After his conversion, Francis took a position of non-violence as a way of life, in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, and he passed that tradition on to his followers. It was after the death of Francis that the teaching of Francis was changed and Franciscans were allowed to bear arms "in defense of Church and country."
To write that St. Francis supported the Crusades or any form of violence against anyone is simply untrue.
I would like to comment on
I would like to comment on these words. It states that "Not only did Francis fail to support the Crusades, he did every thing he could to undermine them." While the Crusades may be politically incorrect by modern standards, Saint Francis did not live in modern times. If Phi Beta Kappa and Woodrow Wilson scholar, Frank Rega is correct, Francis, while no combatant, was an ardent Crusader. Rega says:
"Francis understood that the Fifth Crusade was part of an ongoing just war in response to Muslim invasions of Christian lands, which included many attacks against Italian city-states all along the peninsula over the course of centuries. For example, in the year 846, Rome itself was sacked by 11,000 Muslims, who desecrated the tombs of Sts. Peter and Paul.
Further, the crusade was called for by the Holy Father, and it is well-known that Francis had perfect loyalty to the Catholic Church, and showed devout respect for priests and all the hierarchy. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he felt the crusade was justified on spiritual grounds. As mentioned in the book, Francis told the Sultan "It is just that Christians invade the land you inhabit, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and alienate everyone you can from His worship." "
Rega also states "To reduce this saint to a glorified social worker, a nature lover, or `the first hippie' is a great disservice to his true heritage."
One reviewer on Amazon states:
"Mr. Rega also refutes the misconception that Saint Francis was opposed to the Crusaders taking military action to regain the holy land. While the saint wanted the Muslim's conversion above all, he felt that war was justified if they did not accept Christ and adamantly held to the regions they had stolen from Christian hands.
Thus, when the Sultan argued that the Crusaders were not following the Gospels which taught that one should turn the other cheek when offended, he quickly rejoined quoting Our Lord's words taken from the same discourse: "if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee."
Saint Francis explained:
"Here He wanted to teach us that every man, however dear and close he is to us, and even if he is as precious to us as the apple of our own eye, must be repulsed, pulled out, expelled if he seeks to turn us aside from the faith and love of our God. That is why it is just that Christians invade the land you inhabit, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and alienate everyone you can from His worship." "
Quite simply, unless Rega is either a fool or a liar, and unless the records he cites were written by fools or liars, to write that St. Francis supported the Crusades or any form of violence against anyone, as long as it was a just cause, is quite true.
The truth might set us free but it can be heartbreaking. The feel good pacifist Francis of faith is not the Crusader Francis of history.
For more information please see http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08040302.html
and
http://www.amazon.com/St-Francis-Assisi-Conversion-Muslims/dp/0895558580
I question some of the
I question some of the assumptions that this thesis rests on.
Paul writes, "When we eat this bread, and drink this cup, WE PROCLAIM THE DEATH OF THE LORD UNTIL HE COMES.
In the accounts we have of the martyrdom of Christians in the Second Century, for example, Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp, we read of their eagerness to give their lives for Christ...to share his suffering as martyrs.
I think that the thesis of this book is a facile one, and reflects shoddy scholarship. I expect to see this book hyped on National Geographic Network during Holy Week of 2009...along with other such greats as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and endorsed by the professed agnostic who heads the Department of Religious Studies at Chapel Hill, Bart Ehrman.
Spare me!
One problem with that thesis
One problem with that thesis of “Saving Paradise” is St. Paul and then the Gospels. For St. Paul the death and suffering of Jesus fit in with the Jewish theories of “expiation Sacrifice” and so was interpreted in that light in many passages in the Epistles, and so was also emphasized in the later Gospels.
Your comment should be
Your comment should be placed in context that the writings of St.Paul were written in Greek about the 2nd century,not in Aramaic ,the language of Jesus' time. The earlist wrings from that time of Josephus(63A.D)and the works of St.Thomas which have been rejected by Rome because they do not reinforce the Roman style monarchy known as the Vatican, stressed the importance of healing over suffering,of forgiveness and mercy. Thats was diamentaly opposed to the Jewish and Roman culture of that time. The authors basis for their thesis is correct in that context
William, you say that St.
William, you say that St. Paul's writings are from the 2nd century. What scholarship supports that idea?
You accept as fact that St. Paul DIDN'T write the works attributed to him... but are quick to accept as fact that St. Thomas DID write the gospel attributed to him. Why?
The "Gospel of Thomas" was rejected by the Church in Her early centuries because She discerned that it was fraudulent and did not, like the four canonical gospels, give an account of Jesus's ministry, passion, and resurrection. (Even Mark's "short form" covers the discovery of the empty tomb.)
Saying 114 of the "Gospel of Thomas" is anathema to the "womenpriest" movement.
The writings of Josephus, to my knowledge, have never been considered for inclusion in the New Testament.
From my experience as a
From my experience as a tourist in Turkey and having the opportunity to visit a number of Byzantine Christian Churches(most of the ancient churches are now museums) I was startled to see a very different portrayal of Christ. I didn't see one picture, mosaic or painting, that showed Christ crucified. In my limited experience, I think the authors of Saving Paradise have it right.
Yes, their comment on the
Yes, their comment on the content of the art is correct, but their interpretation of why it is that way (or what is attributed to them according to this review) is not correct.
The emphasis in the first millenium of Christianity was on the Transcendant, Christ Resurrected and returning in power. So, if he were depicted crucified, it was as a triumphant lord. Read anything written in the early medieval period and you will see this depiction. The idea of a 'weak God', one who allowed himself to suffer or be killed, did not work in a constantly warring society (or in attempts to convert the pagans of northern Europe). So the emphasis was on the Resurrection and Heaven - not this life, but the next one. Jesus may not have been depicted as dead on the cross, but he *was* depicted on his throne in Judgement.
About the year 1000, there was a shift towards emphasis on the Incarnation. Jesus was a human being, not just a transcendant God. (Obviously, he is both, and orthodox Christianity has always affirmed both points - it has only ever been a matter of emphasis). From this point on, we start to see a suffering and dying Jesus on the Cross, but we also get St. Francis' nativity scene. It was okay to think of Jesus as a baby, or as someone who stumbled on his way to the cross.
Martyrdom has been praised (and practiced) since the beginning of Christianity, and certainly has nothing to do with Charlemagne.
If either the Transcendental or the Incarnational are ignored or distored, the practice of Christianity suffers (and presumably, the artwork). The goal is not to swing towards one extreme or the other, but to retain what is helpful from both aspects of our concept of Christ (divine and human) while avoiding the errors particular to one side or the other.
I am not an art historian, but just thought I would share what I remember from my classes in medieval history.
I hope the authors will
I hope the authors will answer the above criticisms. I'll check back to find out. Thanks for the review of this book.
The theme fits with my reading of the bible.
This theory of suffering as
This theory of suffering as the greatest christian act was always prolaimed in the TV coverage of JP II death watch. Always how much he suffered as if there is a great merit to suffer or that suffering has a value of its own. I say that is an upside down theology.
The New Testament is full of
The New Testament is full of references to "redemptive suffering" and the necessity of suffering in the Christian life.
Lex orandi lex credendi.
Lex orandi lex credendi. The Liturgy of the Church embraces both death and resurrection in its celebration of the Paschal Mystery. We live in the healthy tension between those two polarities. After all, there can be no resurrection without previous death.
The real issue here seems to be the redemptive value of suffering because Christ could have simply died in his sleep from natural causes, like the Buddha or Confucius or Muhammad. Jesus certainly wanted that, as the scene in the Garden of Gethsemene clearly states. However, Jesus also recognized that, if he was the Way, the Truth, and the Life, that he had no choice but to confront Evil as it dominated in "this world" and to offer his own life to defeat it.
Resurrection is the hope and the promise of life after death is defeated. The Triduum celebrates both polarities in one grand celebration. We can have our favorite/preferred "day" of the three, but in reality they are one.
Not a profound theological resolution of the debate, just a witness to faith.
indeed the extreme
indeed the extreme misreading of the life of Saint francis casts unfortunate doubt upon the admirable thesis of this treatise.
Saint Francis only recently has become the patron of animals, conveniently elevated in plaster to the back of our bird baths, to be silenced like the prophets of old, so we may not hear him now.
He preached to animals and to wolves because human beings would not hear him preach to them of peace and of nonviolence. The wolves listened to him. We still do not, and deny his true histroy even today.
He went barefoot and sat to talk in peace and unarmed with the Muslim leader, in peace and in prayer, then he walked barefoot home again, where he found the fraternity he had founded destroying his principles. He began to tear down the convent, and in fact he was denied entry into it, which he took as perfect joy.
We must know the true Francis, Apostle of Peace and Nonviolence, and bring him still to life in our lives, to receive him and to hear him at least as well as the wolves.
The Reign of Heaven is among us.
Carolyn Colburn states that
Carolyn Colburn states that "The statement in the review that St. Francis supported the Crusades is completely wrong. Not only did Francis fail to support the Crusades, he did every thing he could to undermine them. [...]To write that St. Francis supported the Crusades or any form of violence against anyone is simply untrue."
According to Phi Beta Kappa and Woodrow Wilson scholar Frank Rega's book St. Francis and the Conversion of the Muslims that St. Francis would support the Crusades or any form of violence against anyone is quite true.
Read this excerpts from the book and from a ionterview with the man.
"Francis understood that the Fifth Crusade was part of an ongoing just war in response to Muslim invasions of Christian lands, which included many attacks against Italian city-states all along the peninsula over the course of centuries. For example, in the year 846, Rome itself was sacked by 11,000 Muslims, who desecrated the tombs of Sts. Peter and Paul.
Further, the crusade was called for by the Holy Father, and it is well-known that Francis had perfect loyalty to the Catholic Church, and showed devout respect for priests and all the hierarchy. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he felt the crusade was justified on spiritual grounds. As mentioned in the book, Francis told the Sultan "It is just that Christians invade the land you inhabit, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and alienate everyone you can from His worship." "
Or from a reviewer on Amazon.
"Mr. Rega also refutes the misconception that Saint Francis was opposed to the Crusaders taking military action to regain the holy land. While the saint wanted the Muslim's conversion above all, he felt that war was justified if they did not accept Christ and adamantly held to the regions they had stolen from Christian hands.
Thus, when the Sultan argued that the Crusaders were not following the Gospels which taught that one should turn the other cheek when offended, he quickly rejoined quoting Our Lord's words taken from the same discourse: "if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee."
Saint Francis explained:
"Here He wanted to teach us that every man, however dear and close he is to us, and even if he is as precious to us as the apple of our own eye, must be repulsed, pulled out, expelled if he seeks to turn us aside from the faith and love of our God. That is why it is just that Christians invade the land you inhabit, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and alienate everyone you can from His worship."
Mr. Rega's work is filled with evidence to support his own Crusade against those revisionists who would like to paint a less virile Saint Francis. He decries those for whom Saint Francis: "was not a bold Christian evangelist, but a timid man, whose goal was to have the friars live passively among the Saracens and `to be subject to them,' rather than convert them to the True Religion." "
Do the Crusades violate modern standards of political corectness? Yes but Saint Francis did live by modern standards of ethics. While no combatant, Francis was a Crusader as much as Richard the Lionheart, Godfrey De Bouillon, or Saint Louis King of France.
The truth might set us free but it won't neccessarily make us feel good. Saint Francis the feelgood pacisfist of faith is not Saint Francis the Crusader of real world history.
Carolyn Colburn states that
Carolyn Colburn states that "The statement in the review that St. Francis supported the Crusades is completely wrong. Not only did Francis fail to support the Crusades, he did every thing he could to undermine them. [...]To write that St. Francis supported the Crusades or any form of violence against anyone is simply untrue."
According to Phi Beta Kappa and Woodrow Wilson scholar Frank Rega's book St. Francis and the Conversion of the Muslims that St. Francis would support the Crusades or any form of violence against anyone is quite true.
Read this excerpts from the book and from a ionterview with the man.
"Francis understood that the Fifth Crusade was part of an ongoing just war in response to Muslim invasions of Christian lands, which included many attacks against Italian city-states all along the peninsula over the course of centuries. For example, in the year 846, Rome itself was sacked by 11,000 Muslims, who desecrated the tombs of Sts. Peter and Paul.
Further, the crusade was called for by the Holy Father, and it is well-known that Francis had perfect loyalty to the Catholic Church, and showed devout respect for priests and all the hierarchy. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he felt the crusade was justified on spiritual grounds. As mentioned in the book, Francis told the Sultan "It is just that Christians invade the land you inhabit, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and alienate everyone you can from His worship." "
Or from a reviewer on Amazon.
"Mr. Rega also refutes the misconception that Saint Francis was opposed to the Crusaders taking military action to regain the holy land. While the saint wanted the Muslim's conversion above all, he felt that war was justified if they did not accept Christ and adamantly held to the regions they had stolen from Christian hands.
Thus, when the Sultan argued that the Crusaders were not following the Gospels which taught that one should turn the other cheek when offended, he quickly rejoined quoting Our Lord's words taken from the same discourse: "if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee."
Saint Francis explained:
"Here He wanted to teach us that every man, however dear and close he is to us, and even if he is as precious to us as the apple of our own eye, must be repulsed, pulled out, expelled if he seeks to turn us aside from the faith and love of our God. That is why it is just that Christians invade the land you inhabit, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and alienate everyone you can from His worship."
Mr. Rega's work is filled with evidence to support his own Crusade against those revisionists who would like to paint a less virile Saint Francis. He decries those for whom Saint Francis: "was not a bold Christian evangelist, but a timid man, whose goal was to have the friars live passively among the Saracens and `to be subject to them,' rather than convert them to the True Religion." "
Do the Crusades violate modern standards of political corectness? Yes but Saint Francis did live by modern standards of ethics. While no combatant, Francis was a Crusader as much as Richard the Lionheart, Godfrey De Bouillon, or Saint Louis King of France.
The truth might set us free but it won't neccessarily make us feel good. Saint Francis the feelgood pacisfist of faith is not Saint Francis the Crusader of real world history.
I am looking forward to
I am looking forward to reading "Saving Paradise", and would like to comment on my Catholic childhood. I am not a scholar, so bear with me. I was raised in the pre-Vatican II church, in a parish formed by European immigrants with a reputation for being both religiously conservative and pessimistic about life. The message I got from the sisters and priests was that God is pleased when we suffer. Simple as that. Whatever nuances there were in their message were lost on us of course. I vividly remember 2 anecdotes; one about God being pleased with the mother of a special needs child; we were assured that she would have a beautiful crown in heaven "because she has suffered so much." The other assured us that God is more pleased with a boy who walks 8 block to daily Mass in winter than with one who walks only one block, because the first boy had it harder. In time, black and white formed gray and the questions of course emerged: was God displeased if I enjoyed that chocolate cake, ownership of a new house, or even sex with a spouse?? Are we meant to enjoy things, or give them up? I am not trying to be simplistic; I just have not found consistent guidance or answers. The left says one thing and the right says another. So, I formed my own answer. Each day at morning prayer I open my arms wide and say, "OK, Lord, whatever you give me is fine, as long as you keep walking with me." I do not seek suffering; I seek the walk with my Savior, putting my big ego aside to help, listen, forgive and not judge. (And then I take my arthritis and glaucoma medicine, put my brace on my bad ankle, and hope my tinnitus is not too loud today).
As with mickeyguy above I am
As with mickeyguy above I am no scholar but I agree with him that the 'value'attributed to suffering' far outweighed the 'value of pleasure', no contest, in my growing up. It is still predominant as exemplified in so many of the saints as well as by the traditionaly pius even today, the 'suffering' of JPII, etc.
My minimal knowledge of church history coincides with the general conclusion that the glorified Christ also predominated in the early church, e.g.,a risen, gloriously glorified Christ was superimposed on crosses rather than the dying, dead Christ.
I do not doubt the scriptural acknowledgement of suffering and its spiritual value, potentially. The degree of suffering in God's creation would also suggest that while,maybe, a product of original sin (whatever that is)it has an integral role to play in creation and redemption. But I do agree that the risen Christ Who is with me/us today is the glorified Christ who bears the physical scars, maybe, but not the physical and psychological trauma of his torture, suffering and death. I tend to pray like mickeyguy- "Thy will be done...'
It was my opinion that 'domination' and the sanctifying of suffering as the preferred way really became enshrined with Constantine and Augustine (of Hippo)as almost corelatives of the process of consolidation (read fossilization)of institution and the preeminance of central authority. Augustine became, I thought, the missionary of "abnegation, mortification and self-denial" as the corrective process of holiness and the "emptying of oneself" to obedience and subservience to the centre. The so-called "Celtic way" of right ordering of self in the sense of healing towards holiness is a distinctly different way and associated with the primacy of relationship of self with creation and Christ. Augustine of Hippo killed it and his colleague Augustine of Canturbury later buried it.
I would be very interested in someone(s) with historical knowledge and insight pursuing this subject.
> "We live in the healthy
> "We live in the healthy tension between those two polarities. After all, there can be no resurrection without previous death.
Well said, Don.
It's clear that St. Paul and his co-workers preached Christ crucified, first and foremost, to the house of Israel and the gentiles, both the Jews and the Greeks. After this comes the resurrection, just as repentence comes before forgiveness.
Some Scriptural excerpts:
Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
(Acts 2:36 RSV)
but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption; therefore, as it is written, "Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord."
(I Corinthians 1:23–31 RSV)
When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
(I Corinthians 2:1–2 RSV)
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
(Galatians 3:1 RSV)
I have often felt that we
I have often felt that we misunderstood why Jesus died.
Why would God need to prove that his son needed to die as a pagan form of sacrifice to a loving God?
Because Christians assume that Jesus was God they don't see that Jesus could actually have been following his own teachings by not resorting to violence. Since we assume that Jesus was the incarnation of one of the person's of the trinity, a doctrine that surfaced in the church around the time that the church became part of the Roman and Greek Empires, Christians do not see that Jesus could have been teaching the ultimate lesson, a lesson that we excuse because he was God and only he could have died nonviolently. What about the rest of the apostles, excluding John, and the early Martyrs?
Well that is my 2 bits.
Peace!
why is this garbage here on
why is this garbage here on a Catholic website? the emphasis on the crucifixion and suffering is profoundly essential to being a Christian. in the Crucifix it appears to others as suffering and death, but to the Christian, we see also the glory and resurrection that fills us with profound joy. in my opinion, suffering is more prevalent because it teaches us to be humble. it is said that humility is THE most important virtue, and it is what we need to improve on the most to grow as Christians.
this backwards, "by Protestant scholars" theology keeps the Christian at a kindergarten level of faith. they are reeling you in with an infantile mentality that makes you "feel" good, but in the end, will keep you from growing. it lacks deep roots. there are tons of writings that can explain this much better than i can, so please don't waste your time with this garbage and read good, solid, CATHOLIC material. i read that next to the Bible, "Lives of the Saints" and "The Imitation of Christ" are two of the most important books we can read as Christians. "Lives of the Saints" is my current favorite daily reading. there's at least one Saint for each day of the year, usually less than a page, followed with a reflection. i am often brought to tears with the examples of the Saints, and after being able to relate so closely to them, i am inspired to give my life for Our Lord.
our One, Holy, Catholic Church has 2000 years of experience in this matter. trust the Church that Jesus established. it has countless martyrs, Saints, priests, monks, and nuns who were spiritually 1000x times closer to God than we ever will be. they knew and embraced suffering, but in this they found a closeness to God, which translated to having 1000x more joy than we can even comprehend.
read the precious writings of the Church Fathers and other Saints for yourself, not this evil (yes, i said EVIL) garbage that will only serve to poison you and pull you away. it may have some good in it, but would you drink a glass of water but with just a little bit of poison in it? read what is tried, true, and safe.
before you live with Christ in glory, you must die with Christ in His suffering.
don't be the seed that fell on weak soil. it grew, but it quickly died due to lack of deep roots. to dig deeper into rich soil.. to grow strong roots so that you can weather the storm and blossom into the Saint that God wants you to be.. you must dig deep and learn the value of suffering in order to earn the greater joy.
don't be like a child that doesn't like the hard work and suffering. you may not see it now, but you will learn how out of great suffering comes great joy.
prayers for you all!
+++
P.S. - this anti-Catholic "by Protestant scholars" garbage should be taken off this website. it is despicable to even be promoting it with a review.
Post new comment