Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren
#48
(10-04-2012, 09:03 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 08:52 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 04:46 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 01:47 PM)Walty Wrote: I think this is apples and oranges.  The early Church may have accepted pagan names, but it vehemently fought against paganism itself.  It gave paganism no quarter and did not bat an eye at doing what was necessary to root it out and to expose it as the demonic religion that it is.

Our modern heads of the ecumenical movement do not do the latter.  That's what all the fuss is about.  It's not about mere names or calendar dates.  It's about doctrine and practice.

I do agree that clear teaching should be given to these people, but I disagree that that is what the fuss is about in some quarters. I heard a lot about how JPII shouldn't have worn some Indian headdress or stole. "Inculturation!" was the battle cry. The content of his teaching was almost a footnote, if that, in some instances. Just to exemplify, would you support the idea of Africans drumming during Mass? What about them having vestments in different colors, like black as a color of hope instead of green?

The Christians who used pagan symbolism or holidays didn't put upon the clothes of the pagan priests.  I believe that that is crossing a line. 

If St. Paul told us to not eat meat offered to a pagan god, why should the Vicar of Christ wear the clothing of a priest of a pagan god?

Not looking to get involved in the discussion, but didn't St Paul say exactly the opposite, that we may eat food that was sacrificed to idols?

Well, we kind of see two slightly different responses here.  Acts seems to say that one shouldn't eat meat sacrificed to idols, straight up.

"That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well."
(Acts 15: 29)

St. Paul seems to be a bit less forward with saying that one should never do it, but he also warns against eating the meat because it may very well cause scandal.

"But there is not knowledge in every one. For some until this present, with conscience of the idol: eat as a thing sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.  But meat doth not commend us to God. For neither, if we eat, shall we have the more; nor, if we eat not, shall we have the less.  But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak. For if a man see him that hath knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols?
And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died?  Now when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother."

(1 Corinthians 8:7-13)

So, I guess I would have to defer to someone who knows more about Scripture as St. Paul and Acts seem to be in some disagreement here, but I would argue that, at the very least, the post-conciliar popes have wrought much scandal with these actions, which is something that St. Paul explicitly warns against.

And it seems that St. Paul didn't ever eat meat sacrificed to idols for just this very reason.  
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - by Walty - 10-04-2012, 09:19 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)