Spiritual writers often refer to "the dark night of the soul"–the experience of great souls of seemingly being abandoned by God, as (perhaps) when Solomon wrote the book of Ecclesiastes ("Vanity, vanity; all is vanity!"), or (even more perhaps) when Jesus cried, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Mother Theresa, it was revealed after her death, experienced this phenomenon as well, and recent evidence suggests that it lasted for a very long time–decades, in fact. Truly an antarctic dark night of the soul.
GET THE STORY.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
It is unfortunate that the mass media had to get a hold of this, since it obviously cannot understand a deep mystical experience like a dark night of the soul. The headline on one major new website read: “New evidence shows Mother Theresa questioned her faith.” The book will definitely be inspiring to others going through similar darkness in their prayer life, and definitely thoroughly misunderstood by the vast majority. This is actually not new news, Bl. Mother Theresa had spoken before of the darkness she experienced, it is just more concrete evidence of what we already knew.
Mother Theresa was kind of an emo =/
Well, at least she persevered and did not fade away into oblivion and ponder about it; she left a legacy for us, which is honorable.
Although she did get one thing right: we are talking a lot about her and not enough on Jesus.
I think every Christian who pursues his or her faith deeply and honestly struggles with doubt and unbelief, often for much of their lives. In Introduction to Christianity Pre-16 observes that St. Terese of Lisieux reported being “assailed by the worst temptations of atheism.”
Of course, Pre-16 also points out that honest atheists experience the opposite sort of “temptation” and “doubt”: Perhaps it is true after all.
… If this shakes them, what will they do when they find out about St. Augustine?
I read the article in Time before coming here and was upset that it gave so much ink to the Hitchen’s viewpoint, “See, see, I told you God does not exist. Even Mother Theresa figured it out.” His opportunism and self-promotion is nauseating and I doubt he even sees the contradiction in his position. If God is not real, how can a saint feel his absence?
But while reading the article I feel I had a revelation. Maybe God granted Mother Theresa her prayer to love Christ more than any other by allowing her to share in Christ’s desolation on the cross. “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Without near constant infusions of grace to keep me going, I fear I would be lost. Mother Theresa kept her faith through decades of God hiding from her, even being absent from the eucharist. How close will she be to the throne of God in heaven?
Exactly.
Perhaps the more you are aware of God, the more you can measure the size of the hole in your heart longing for God. That may be the cost of the gift of free will that God granted us. Hitchens rejects the gift. Mother Theresa embraced it with all the formidable will she had. Is that not Love itself?
Mostly Hitchens is just predictable. What disappoints me about his response – and the stories I’ve seen about this so far – is that he just can’t account sufficiently for M. Teresa’s perseverence in faith despite feeling Christ’s absence for fifty years.
She had visions of Him prior to this fifty-year “dark night”. She knew He was real. I would say that’s a much more rational explanation than “she just couldn’t face the truth”…
Happy Catholic has an awesome post on this subject. Her spiritual director advice Bl. Theresa to view the absence of outward signs of His presence as the “spiritual side” of her work for Him and that her longing for his presence was evidence of His proximity.
Someone give me the short version: is this different from what we’ve heard about her before, or just now getting major press?
She amazes me. The first time I heard of someone being given the gift of suffering the lack of feeling God was St. Therese and it blew my mind. What a saint you would have to be, and the fact that I’ve never *not* “felt” God’s presence tells me just how far from holiness I am. My easy life is such a testimony to what a wuss He thinks I am, lol!
Praise God for His Saints!
Mother Theresa’s life is the perfect exemplar for what St. John of the Cross meant when he spoke of “faith alone.”
The “dark night” that so many saints go through and which St John of the Cross described seem different than the temptation to doubt and disbelief. St Therese seems like a bad example to go by, because she went through both. But the dark night is largely affective, it concerns not being able to feel God’s presence, or any love for God, or find any good quality in oneself, etc. It’s perfectly consistent with a firm faith.
The potent temptation of the saint to disbelief, rather than to despair or accedia or some other sin, seems like a more modern phenomenon which is increasing due to pressure from the cultural and intellectual atmosphere. You can find instances of the dark night among medieval saints, but as far as I can tell the temptation to atheism was common–their metaphysics was too good for that!
The problem of belief and unbelief particularly affects the modern man. Dosoyevsky writes especially powerfully about it in The Brothers Karamazov but it’s a common theme in many modern religious writers, much more so than in previous ages.
My only point is that Mother Theresa could have gone through a dark night without ever having a “crisis of faith”, although of course she could have had both.
Neuner would later write, “It was the redeeming experience of her life when she realized that the night of her heart was the special share she had in Jesus’ passion.” And she thanked Neuner profusely: “I can’t express in words — the gratitude I owe you for your kindness to me — for the first time in … years — I have come to love the darkness.
In one sentence Mother Teresa answers the psycologists and atheists. This is not some sort of inner attacking success pop psyc thing. And, unlike the communists trying to prop up the Soviet Union, Mother Tereasa was trying to empty herself completely rather than filling herself.
This isn’t so surprising to me. Mother Teresa immersed herself in human suffering and after doing that for awhile, she started to have spiritual doubts. Who wouldn’t. But the most important part was that she was given the grace of perseverance, a sure sign of sanctity. She was able to lead others with her words and example and didn’t stray from her cause, the sign of a saint.
The model of faith for John of the Cross is Christ’s willingness to surrender himself to the Father despite feeling with every fiber of his being that the Father had foresaken him. It is the supernatural, infused ability to trust God when you are completely naked.
To have been given a faith so strong that she could endure that for half a century is a marvelous testimony to the power of faith. To say for 50 years, not only do I not feel Your Presence, but I feel as though You have foresaken me, that You have foresaken my entire world, and to day after day after day keep surrendering yourself to that God, will go down in history as one of the most powerful witnesses to the Glory of God in the history of the Church.
Despite what Hitchens says.
Someone should inform Mr. Hitchens who attacked Mother Teresa’s character and made money off of doing that, that she has impacted the world far more than he has.
Love is a choice, an action. It sometimes has little to do with feelings to prompt it or stoke it. Do we marvel over those who’ve spent 50 years of a loveless marriage doing the right thing? Love of God and honoring a commitment unto Him is what every vocation demands; there are no promises of consolation.
It seems to me that the Lord has arranged for Mother to have had a “white” martyrdom, a persecution from within, in a manner of speaking, and it’s only now showing. She didn’t want that revealed, for she had so many to lead and inspire and strengthen.. but her Church did, and she deferred to the Church. Her Spouse knows exactly what He is doing.
Michael Sullivan: Great, great insight. I’d love to hear what others think about your distinction between a “dark night” and “doubts” and whether the latter is in fact more prevalent in modern life.
“…the fact that I’ve never *not* “felt” God’s presence tells me just how far from holiness I am…”
Not necessarily, at all. Your gift may be the awareness of Christ’s presence, while Mother Teresa’s was to suffer with him by experiencing this blank silence.
God can work through both.
I have “mountaintop” moments, and experiences wherein I feel the almost palpable presence of God or of the Blessed Mother… but these are not the norm.
I agree with others above who have pointed out that not to feel God’s presence – to experience the “dark night” – is not the same thing AT ALL as having “doubts” about the faith.
My fear from all this is that many will be tempted to think “if Mother Teresa doubted God’s existence, as this says, then what hope is there for my own doubts?”, which is precisely the thought that I had when I read it too.
It is unfortunate that the mass media had to get a hold of this, since it obviously cannot understand a deep mystical experience like a dark night of the soul.
That’s what is so unfortunate.
Even now, there have been several spins being made of this.
I watched both the NBC news segment as well as the TODAY show segment and both keep repeating and accentuating the words “Good Works” all throughout the programs but that even with “all her Good Works”, she harbored these doubts (e.g., repeating the supposed letter of Mother Teresa — “her smile being a mask” or something to that effect).
News Flash:
Even the Apostles suffered such doubts about Christ and their Faith — in spite of the fact that they saw first-hand all the miracles Our Lord had performed!!!
To be fair though, at least Ann Curry at the TODAY show had the decency to add at the end of the TODAY show segment that was shown (which was being reported by another Journalist) that what was admirable was that Mother Teresa stuck it out to the end.
Also, I’ve got to admit, the TODAY show folks been more kind to Catholics than most media outlets.
They even showed a segment a week ago about Attendance at Mass and how at a certain Catholic parish, a devoted priest is trying to encourage attendance through some personal ministering of the parish members there.
+J.M.J+
I guess it’s not a good idea for a non-psychologist like myself to try to “diagnose” someone who has been deceased for a decade now. But I must wonder whether any of Blessed Teresa’s ordeal may have also been due to some type of clinical depression.
I say that because I just went through a rather dark period myself, mostly due to clinical depression (though the devil also took advantage of me in my weakened state, so some of it at least was spiritual). I’m feeling better now, having taken steps to deal with the depression.
When I read the exerpts from her letters today, though, I could relate to some of what she said. That’s what makes me wonder whether there might have been a biomedical aspect to her suffering. I could be wrong, of course.
In Jesu et Maria,
What I find interesting about all this is that Mother Teresa’s essential message was that we need to discover Christ in the “distressing visage of the poor”.
That is a difficult leap for anyone to make but it seems perhaps fitting that once she began to serve Christ in the poor she no longer received sensible consolations of his presence in prayer.
Oh Lord, is this the way it’s going to go? I’ve heard that theory elsewhere this morn as well, and again I say: Poppycock. I’d say something else, but I wouldn’t be allowed back in. Surely, anyone who opts to love — truly love — is going to suffer from depression. Love is not perfect, here. Yet. But genuine depression paralyzes, yes? Was Mother Teresa paralyzed in any of her actions in the name of Love? Well, looking not only at her personal history but around the world as to how she changed it, the answer is blatantly No.
True love, every vocation, that which lays down life for its friends or its spiritual children, is hard. Period.
Sometimes when offered two crowns, a saintly soul in love picks both, even if indirectly via her vows long ago. Imagine hanging with Him on the Cross in that Eloi Eloi moment for 50 years. What love.
“Also, I’ve got to admit, the TODAY show folks been more kind to Catholics than most media outlets.”
Ann, I think the media consultants to the networks have discovered the same thing as the democratic political consultants; they have lost all trust and credibility from an important demographic – Catholics – and they are scrambling to make up for it.
I noticed even Sean Hannity did a very Catholic segment the night before last; I believe he is in damage control mode with Catholics as well …
I think it is clear, from problems like this, that Christianity is a hoax.
Aristotle,
Interesting. How so?
Aristotle, Is that sarcasm or are you a rhetorical bomb thrower?
I think it is clear, from problems like this, that Christianity is a hoax.
I was anticipating such comments.
It almost reminds me of the Salma Hayek film The Maldonado Miracle where the whole miracle was a Hoax (or so it seemed).
Ann, I think the media consultants to the networks have discovered the same thing as the democratic political consultants; they have lost all trust and credibility from an important demographic – Catholics – and they are scrambling to make up for it.
Mark,
Good point (although, I’m not Ann). ;P
I was actually wondering why recently, they’ve been doing so many ‘Catholic’ segments on TODAY.
Initially, I thought the addition of Meredith Viera had something to do with it (somebody informed me she had ‘Pull’ and was Catholic).
However, I believe your reasoning makes better sense.
Sharing in the Cross of Christ is now a “problem” and proof “that Christianity is a hoax”.
Jesus told us: “Pick up your cross and follow Me.”
So, doing what Jesus told us to do, and enduring the trial He told us we would have is now proof refuting Christianity.
Unique reasoning.
Such good posts above.
About a year and a half ago, I had occasion to begin to read St. John of the Cross’s Dark Night of the Soul. Since it’s not an easy read, I also did a search which is when I discovered that Mother Teresa had experienced it. It was very consoling to know that she did so much while experiencing such aridity.
After reading the first few chapters, it hit me that it wasn’t Mother Teresa doing what she did despite the dark night but because she experienced the dark night. That while everyone hits dry spots, what St. John of the Cross describes is a very specific stage in a person’s spiritual life. I’ve heard the experience that St. John of the Cross describes in relation to people who have been founders or foundresses and once they enter it, comes and goes for the rest of their lives.
St. John of the Cross explains what happens in book 1, chapter 9. That “God transfers to the spirit the good things and strength of the senses,” that the spirit continues to be fed, but the senses remain dry. It’s the dryness that makes it seem like God is not there.
For Rosemarie, in the same chapter, St. John makes distinctions between the dark night and what we now know as depression. There are areas of great similarity and it takes a good spiritual director to discern if the person is indeed entering the dark night. Then again, everyone hits dry spots.
JustMe, anyone who opts to love — truly love — is going to suffer from depression. That’s an interesting view and certainly anyone truly loves will hit rough patches. That might be what a layperson calls depression. But depression as a medical diagnosis has to meet specific criteria. In the same way, St. John of the Cross lays out specific criteria that distinguishes the dark night of the soul.
This is really not the exact nor as big as a story as the secular news media is making it out to be.
Her words are very poetic, certainly express doubt and frustration–but we do not know the context nor are the words are obviously or explicitly clear as the conclusions in the media.
I have had wierd thoughts and doubts that could make me look insane. I may have bordered on insanity not just in faith but even in professional personal issues and confidence and belief in success and perservering in relationships.
To take private letters or comments to a spiritual director and make extrapolations is not a good logical way to look at this.
These letters and her doubts about God (at least at times or in some sense) were actually know for some time and reported in the media years ago. But it now seems new and innovative and is being used to demonstrate aethieism or agnosticisism or if this great saint doubted than how we can believe (when I believe the oppossite is possible)
I have a friend who recently had a tumor removed–please pray for him in Chicago.
+J.M.J+
>>>So, doing what Jesus told us to do, and enduring the trial He told us we would have is now proof refuting Christianity.
Oh, but didn’t you know that, if Christianity were true, there would be absolutely no pain or suffering whatsoever, anywhere in the world? Never mind that the Bible doesn’t say that (in fact it says the opposite) – atheists are convinced that that’s how things would be and they’re always right in their own minds. They couldn’t possibly have a skewed understanding about God and religion, could they?
So let’s see: a racist demogogue slaughters more than six million innocent people during WWII, and atheists say that proves that God doesn’t exist because if He did the innocent wouldn’t suffer. A woman dedicates her whole life to caring for the poorest of the poor and perseveres in that work despite terrible inner turmoil, inspiring thousands to follow her example, and atheists say that *also* proves that God doesn’t exist because if He did He wouldn’t allow His faithful to undergo spiritual trials.
I think I remember the name of this game: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.
In Jesu et Maria,
This is where the Roman Catholic faith shines! We have such a rich, deep faith. Sound-bites from the news media cannot possibly reach the depth of this experience.
Her words are very poetic, certainly express doubt and frustration–but we do not know the context nor are the words are obviously or explicitly clear as the conclusions in the media.
AMEN, Jon!!!
You’ve hit it precisely on the nail!
It’s amazing that the News media keeps on focussing on a select line in her letter that mentions her allegedly indicating that her “smile was only a mask” (or something to that effect) to make it appear as if it was all an act while not placing her actual words and the entire letter itself within its rightful context.
I have a dear friend who struggles with the pain of living with a much loved, but agnostic husband. She was sharing, some time ago, that she has periods of time in her life, when she wonders if he is right, and she, the devout Christian, is wrong; if there is a God at all.
“How do you deal with it?” I asked her; “What do you do?”
“Oh,” she replied, “I do the same things I always do. My faith is built on Who Christ is, not on how I feel about it”.
I am sure she would simply hate to be compared to a saint. I am also sure that I am guilty of more than a little envy, at her rock solid devotion to Jesus Christ….even when she has no sense that He is there.
My Cat’s Name is Lily,
Thanks so much for those comments!
I really appreciate them!
I particularly admire your friend’s comment:
“My faith is built on Who Christ is, not on how I feel about it.”
That takes a whole lot of Faith that sometimes some of us suffer many doubts about.
I mean, especially in this world when, for the most part, one witnesses the most horrible things happening and in the midst of all that, how can anybody say there is a God?
Perhaps in the midst of all the suffering that Mother Teresa personally witnessed and even suffered, one can’t actually blame her for experiencing such doubts at various times in her life.
It can’t be helped — especially in a world where injustice seems to be more rampant than anything else.
Mary Kay (and others),
perhaps it would help to read Ascent of Mount Carmel before tackling Dark Night of the Soul, which is its continuation. The Dark Night sounds more exciting, but it makes less sense without reading what St John has to say about earlier stages of the spiritual life.
I really appreciate her perseverance. I think everyone has “spiritual valleys,” but most of us back away in such times even if it’s something as simple as missing that prayer meeting or taking your mind of faith for a while. Yet, this saint immersed herself in Christ and helped others without haulting even when she was in a “spiritual valley.”
Michael,
Thanks for the suggestion of Ascent of Mt. Carmel. I’ll put it on my ever growing list.
It would make sense to read the first book first but Dark Night was the book that was um, recommended so that’s what I picked up. I should also add that I’ve gotten past the “not easy read” stage. Perhaps it was good thing that I didn’t start with the first book because I really needed at that time to hear about Mother Teresa’s experience with it.
As a Cradle Catholic I have been exposed to the writings of and about the Saints and Martyr’s lives, my entire life.
Blessed Mother Teresa is ….Absolutely Awesome!!!
She blows them all away, she is closer to God than anyone I have ever heard of!! She was as another Christ, He so lived in her and worked through her that she didn’t see HIM, but we all did! My Mother and Mother-in-law both use to say, “sometimes you can’t see the forest for the trees”.
Anyone who really knew about her, knows she was a living Saint. As someone else said above also, I wouldn’t doubt that she is a White Martyr.
Thank you Jimmy for posting this beautiful account of her spiritual life, I can’t wait to get the book.
I just checked the Barnes and Noble site, just to confirm what I already knew – that they promote liberal theme books, but are silent about books with a conservative theme. Nothing in the New Fall Books. I typed in the title.
Sales rank #1.
Their hottest selling book and not a word. Then again, “Class, can you say NYTimes bestseller?”
I ordered my copy today. I am glad that this has hit the mainstream press, even though many will not have neither the framework nor the inclination to report this in context.
Having said that, even before the book arrives I have already had more conversations about spiritual union, “dark night”, etc. in one day than in any of the past few months.
My guess is that we’ll all have many such opportunities, and perhaps this will be a spur to our own growth … how great is our God!
Jon, I can’t afford to fly to Chicago; can I pray for your friend in California? 🙂
Mr. “Aristotle” needs to desperately read his own work! 🙂 Therein, (he must have forgotten :-)) he will find that he, Aristotle, posited and proved the First, Unmoved Mover (in the Physics Book VIII) and the reality of a eternal, immaterial, immovable, intellectual substance whose essence is actuality that is one (in the Metaphysics Book XII). In other words, GOD.
I am always amazed when “freethinker” atheists pose as Aristotle to “disprove” God; when, in fact, Aristotle gave proofs for God! It might behoove them to read and actually **think** about Aristotle’s arguments…
With this “news” about Mother Teresa come all the accusations of corruption. She took money from corrupt government officials, MADE dying people suffer more “for Jesus,” etc. Some of the stuff I’ve seen is pretty vile. Has anyone come across a good answer to this stuff, or are we supposed to just respond with lame things like “She did the best she could”?
My answer to such types is to suggest they keep their bigotry to themselves. Anti-Christian bigotry is usually behind such remarks.
Reading some of the content of her letters is revealing–this was more than just a season of the dark night of the soul that we all face, but she really questioned her faith, God, and His Son Jesus Christ as to the genuineness and validity of faith.
That is something quite different.
I had a Romanist friend of mine who went and visited Mother Teresa a few years before her death. His was troubled as he told me of that brief meeting. What deeply surprised him was two key things: 1. she denied and rejected Jesus Christ as the only way to heaven; and 2. she displayed idol statues and paid homage to those “Hindu deities” in her hut. She prayed to them. As you can imagine, this news was very disturbing indeed to him.
Giving ones life to the poor is an admirable thing; but it cannot save and is impotent in producing eternal salvation. I pray this very giving, caring selfless woman repented of her sins, came to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of her life before she died. Otherwise she is under God’s wrathful hand that will not cease for eternity.
John 14:6
Steve
I wonder if his “Romanist” friend appreciates his intentional slur via the use of the pejorative “Romanist”?
I really think he wants the above drivel to be true. I wonder if he has any actual evidence to back up his above slander?
Nah! He’d have posted it if he did.
bill912
I don’t drive by post…
Please answer the concern voiced by my friend. What say you?
Steve
I rest my case.
The heck of it is, he likely doesn’t understand that he made my point.
Yes, she questioned her faith, her relationship with God, even Jesus’s love for her. But while she questioned her faith, I don’t see that she questioned “the validity of faith” in a larger sense, i.e., for other Christians. All her doubts seem to have been for herself.
As troubling as this might seem, we should bear in mind that one can easily go through the Psalms and find similar struggles with darkness and despair. We tend to gloss over such difficulties in the Psalms because they’re inspired scripture; it’s much easier to look askance at letters from a “Romanist” nun.
“Questioning” does not mean “rejecting”, as “temptation” does not mean “sin”.
SDG:
Though we disagree you are a refreshing voice of linear thinking here. Thank you for your sober reply.
bill912:
Don’t take cheap shots—respond to the issue as SDG did.
Forget the personal testimony of my Romanist friend, here is Mother Teresa in her own words. Take some time and read them and then maybe respond intelligently, lucidly and with propriety.
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
In her book, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers, she says: “We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.” (Pages 81-82)
In an interview with Christian News a nun who worked with Mother Teresa was asked the following in regards to the Hindus they worked with, “These people are waiting to die. What are you telling them to prepare them for death and eternity?” She replied candidly, “We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods.” (emphasis mine).
A Simple Path is a compilation of the teachings and meditations of Mother Teresa. In the foreword we read, “The Christian way has always been to love God and ones neighbor as oneself. Yet Mother Teresa has, perhaps with the influence of the East, distilled six steps to creating peace in ourselves and others that can be taken by anyone — even someone of no religious beliefs or of a religious background other than Christian — with no insult to beliefs or practices. This is why, when reading Mother Teresa’s words and those of her community, we may, if we choose, replace the references to Jesus with references to other godheads or symbols of divinity.” (emphasis mine).
Through the entire book there is never a hint that MT sees salvation in Jesus Christ as the only way. Rather we read things like, “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic” (Page 31).
Yet some more quotes, “I love all religions. … If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there.” Or in another place, “All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”
I imagine that these are disturbing to read for anyone in the RCC. What is the truth here? What do you think? Can you provide quotes from MT that not only affirm the gospel of Jesus Christ as the only way for salvation; but also, where she denies her above assertions?
Sincerely,
Steve
Eph. 2:8-9
(emphasis mine) in the first quote as well. My bad it was left out… Steve.
Steve, my first thought was the same as Bill’s – no evidence to back up the allegation. Are those the exact words Mother Teresa used, did your friend use a tape recorder, or did your friend paraphrase?
My second reaction was that there’s no need to defend Mother Teresa’s faith, to prove her faith. There’s a huge difference between Mother Teresa’s comments while in the dark night and the relativism that you’ve apparently perceived them to be.
Someone else will have to explain the Catholic Church’s teaching on salvation of those with no knowledge of Jesus. She’s not denying Jesus. One she’s dealing with those close to death, so it’s not like there’s a gazillion amount of time for instruction.
I recall reading a book a few years ago written by a member of Mother T’s order. According to the nun, Mother T encouraged her sisters to attend a Hindu Ashram.
Hey Steve,
Useing the pejorative term “Romanist” instead of Catholic certainly isn’t helping your case. From my experience, when you use such pejorative terms people disregard everything you have to say because you have proven to be inconsiderate ans sloppy. Anything else you say after proving this is irrelevant and i can’t take your “Romanist” as credible.
Steve,
You said in part: “Giving ones life to the poor is an admirable thing; but it cannot save and is impotent in producing eternal salvation.”
Matthew 19.16,21: “And behold, one came up to him, saying, ‘Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?’…Jesus said to him, ‘If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.'”
So how, exactly, according to Jesus is giving one’s life to the poor impotent?
Eric S.:
Stay on topic… What do you think of these quotes by Mother Teresa? Is she representing the biblical gospel in what she is affirming?
Mary Kay:
When Mother Teresa is “dealing with those close to death, so it’s not like there’s a gazillion amount of time for instruction” that precipitates the point even more to proclaim to them the only hope of salvation through Jesus Christ. What did you think of her quotes? Can you biblically defend them?
Brian Miles:
So you do believe that giving your life to the poor is sufficient for salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ as the only way, truth and life? Helping the poor grants you heaven… Thank you for being honest–though you’re completely wrong.
Can anyone on this thread answer Mother Teresa’s words above that all faiths lead to the same God and are sufficient for eternal life? In reality, isn’t Mother Teresa, by her own words, a universalist?
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
Eric S, you hit it right on the nose.
Can anyone on this thread answer Mother Teresa’s words above that all faiths lead to the same God and are sufficient for eternal life?
She did not say that. According to you she rather said, “If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.” That is nothing more than a paraphrase of the doctrine that the invincibly ignorant will not be condemned for what they do not know.
Steve,
Are you talking about “giving one’s life to the poor”, or just “helping the poor”? Important difference, no? In any case, as to what I believe, Matthew’s Gospel could not be any clearer. When Jesus is asked point blank about how one obtains eternal life, he responds by saying: “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Not only is faith implicit in this command, but more importantly it demonstrates that there would be no saving faith at all (only dead faith) unless Jesus’ command is actaully obeyed.
Michael, thanks. For the life of me, earlier I couldn’t come up with that phrase that the invincibly ignorant will not be condemned.
Steve,
that precipitates the point even more to proclaim to them the only hope of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Michael has already mentioned the teaching about the invincibly ignorant. The people Mother Teresa took in simply don’t have the energy to start some brand new course of instruction. So Mother Teresa and her sisters tend to their needs, being the presence of Christ for them. Try Matthew 25:35-40.
If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there.”
Try the beginning of psalm 42. “As the deer longs for living streams, so my soul is yearning for you, my God. My soul is thirsting for God, the God of my life; when can I enter and see the face of God?”
While I can’t speak for Mother Teresa, but for those of us who don’t do direct evangelization, there’s the view that when people search for God, their thirst will lead them to Him. Think of it as the Montessori method rather than SATs.
Thanks, Steve C.
Frankly, I admit that there are troubling aspects of Mother Teresa’s articulation of the Catholic faith, which I think any orthodox Catholic should acknowledge. I have always been uncomfortable with some things she has been quoted as saying in this regard.
The Catholic faith clearly teaches that Jesus is the only way of salvation (e.g., [i]Dominus Iesus[/i]). While it may be possible for individuals outside the Catholic faith, even individuals in other religions lacking explicit faith in Jesus, to be given the grace of an inner disposition that is implicitly open to salvation through Christ, it is always and only through Christ that salvation comes. Believing Muslims may die and go to heaven; if so, they are saved by Jesus, through an inner openness to the true God’s will that [i]would have[/i] embraced Jesus as savior had they truly understood the truth with clarity.
Incidentally, it is similarly through such implicit openness to God’s unknown will that we may hope that Steve Camp will be saved, on the understanding that if Steve truly understood with clarity that Jesus wished him to belong to the one true Church governed by the successor of St. Peter, he would surely obey. 🙂
That said, I can’t help concluding that Mother Teresa sometimes expressed herself in ways that at least sound uncomfortably like unacceptable religious indifferentism or false syncretism. There may be ways of parsing statements like “We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods” such that they [i]could[/i] be understood as not contrary to the unique truth of Christianity, but I appreciate the common-sense wisdom of a certain priest-writer who encouraged readers to “avoid an expression which can no doubt be correctly understood after much explanation, but which may give rise to many misunderstandings.”
That said, I think there is more to be said for a correct understanding of Mother Teresa’s sayings than Steve C is so far allowing. A passage from the CCC recently highlighted in another thread by our resident troll, as inapplicable as it was in that context, bears repeating here: “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.”
This doesn’t mean overlooking problematic elements, but it does mean not exaggerating the scope of the problem or making things more problematic than they need to be. For example, a quotation from the foreword of A Simple Path isn’t necessarily the most reliable source regarding what Mother Teresa herself actually believed.
Steve Camp:
Please take note of THIS POST.
Steve DG,
I don’t have a problem with a Catholic saying that Mother T. isn’t the most reliable guide to Catholicism and leaving it at that.
Yet I have heard Catholics make the argument that “you Prots don’t have saints like Mother T.” And before she is declared a saint, shouldn’t Rome get to the bottom of what she allegedly taught?
Mary Kay:
So your view of evangelism is: don’t tell anyone about the gospel and salvation through Jesus Christ alone. Because if they die in their ignorance, they will be given a special grace and still be saved and granted heaven some how…
Did I get that correct? And you have the authority of the Word of God to that end found where?
This is why many Christians believe that RCCers are more loyal to the teachings of Trent, VI, VIi and the 1994 Catechism than they are to the Word of God.
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Cor. 3:5
SDG:
You said, “That said, I can’t help concluding that Mother Teresa sometimes expressed herself in ways that at least sound uncomfortably like unacceptable religious indifferentism or false syncretism. There may be ways of parsing statements like “We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods” such that they [i]could[/i] be understood as not contrary to the unique truth of Christianity, but I appreciate the common-sense wisdom of a certain priest-writer who encouraged readers to “avoid an expression which can no doubt be correctly understood after much explanation, but which may give rise to many misunderstandings.”
Exactly… Thank you at least for being honest here.
Jimmy A
Truth can always stand the test of scrutiny; error never wants to be challenged. Please take not of THIS POST.
Grace and peace,
Steve
1 Cor. 15:1-3
Jeb,
I don’t have a problem with a Catholic saying that Mother T. isn’t the most reliable guide to Catholicism and leaving it at that. That’s not what SDG said.
What SDG was:
a quotation from the foreword of A Simple Path isn’t necessarily the most reliable source regarding what Mother Teresa herself actually believed.
SDG said that a quotation isn’t necessarily what Mother Teresa believed and you somehow twisted that into Mother Teresa somehow not being the “most reliable guide to Catholicism.”
Mary Kay,
I wasn’t presenting it as a literal quote of what Steve DG said.
But what he did say is quite close to what I said:
“Frankly, I admit that there are troubling aspects of Mother Teresa’s articulation of the Catholic faith, which I think any orthodox Catholic should acknowledge. I have always been uncomfortable with some things she has been quoted as saying in this regard.”
A person who doesn’t articulate things well isn’t the most reliable guide, even if the person’s fault is a lack of clarity.
Did I get that correct?
No, not correct. Well, maybe yes and no.
Anyone who knows me – whether they’re Catholic, neutral or antagonistic to Catholicsm – knows how important my Catholic faith is to me. They know they can ask any question about Catholicism and get an understandable answer. They don’t agree with it, but it’s not like I don’t talk about my faith.
But it’s true that I don’t go around telling people that there salvation is through Jesus alone. Or only through the Catholic Church. There are two reasons for that. One is that the most powerful witnesses in my own life were not words, but the actions of deeply devout Catholics. That’s what I hope people see by my actions.
Some people have the gift for what I call direct evangelization, but I don’t. The second reason is that it reminds me of a sales pitch, so I don’t do it.
Perhaps a third reason is that only God provides the grace for someone to accept Him. While some people simply don’t know about Jesus, that doesn’t describe most people I know. They’ve heard the Gospel, but previous experience has been an obstacle. So I clarify where I see misunderstandings.
Because if they die in their ignorance, they will be given a special grace and still be saved and granted heaven some how…
Catholic teaching says that holds if the ignorance is unavoidable. So people still have the obligation to both learn the Gospel and tell others of the Gospel. I just do my telling by actions rather than words.
Steve, how much experience have you had with people near death or even dealing with the severe pain of say immediate post-op or severe injury? I had a bout of it and even for familiar material, I had an attention span of maybe 10 minutes. I couldn’t have focused on new material if I wanted to.
I think you’re eagerness to go in and “win converts” has maybe an unrealistic picture of how debilitated the people are. The thought just occurred to me that given what others have said about your being a musician, that perhaps you have the flexibility in your schedule to visit a place where Mother Teresa’s sisters are. They’re in other places besides India. That would probably be the best explanation of what they do.
Does that answer your question?
In mass-market religious books from “mainstream” publishers, it’s pretty common for the editors to downplay the Christian convictions of the people being profiled, quoted, etc. That’s what’s happening here. The editor wants to make Mother Teresa’s words palatable to people who aren’t committed Christians. It’s about selling books.
So maybe Jeb didn’t understand SDG’s point about the foreword: Mother Teresa didn’t write it. That’s why it can’t be taken as if it were representative of her views.
For all we know, Mother T probably wasn’t even asked to review or approve the foreword. Do you think she spent time checking out stuff that people wrote about her?
Jeb,
A person who doesn’t articulate things well isn’t the most reliable guide, even if the person’s fault is a lack of clarity.
But it’s not a lack of clarity, nor a lack of articulation. I know what Mother Teresa was talking about because other Catholics have described the same thing.
I will grant you that it’s not the best place to start as an introduction to Catholicism. There’s too much background, too much context, that is not obvious to a newcomer.
But the fact that it’s not the best starting point does not invalidate the authenticity of her faith, of her Catholicism.
Do you see the difference?
The most troubling thing I have read so far is the missionary’s statement that they tell the Hindus to pray to their gods. If they actually say this in an explicit way, then I find this all but incontrovertably and hugely problematic. If, on the other hand, she is saying something in a conversational way and what she is referring to is a practice of telling the people to pray to God “as best they understand Him” at the time of their deaths, or to pray to God without specifying a god in particular – in other words, something along the lines of telling them to pray and ask God to lead them home rather than trying to preach something to people on their deathbeds that would require extended periods of time for them to accept, then this would be far more acceptable. If they are saying telling them “say a prayer to Vishnu,” then that’s about as bad as you can get.
If we believe that God calls to each soul at the moment of death, as Catholics – and many non-Catholics – do, then I think that the general idea of not trying to preach to people on their deathbeds is very profound. We all know that we are supposed to be Christ to others, and this I believe is the key here. I have long belieeved that it is the vocation of every Christian to be Christ live in such a way that at the moment of death, when the true God of the universe makes that final call to a person who does not know Him, He can tell them that if they come to Him, He will treat them as we did. If God is able to say to some person that I may never have had the chance to preach to, “I’m God. I know you don’t know me, but if you accept my invitation, I will treat you like Shane did,” then I believe I have succeded in being a Christian. One can hardly blame a person for rejecting the invitation to an eternity with Someone they don’t even know. We need to make sure that these people do know God before they die, even if they don’t know His Name.
And in this regard, I think the missionaries of charity are fantastic – as long as it is that, and not the explicit encouragment of idolatry. I think this is something worth investigating further, if it is possible.
Steve,
While I’m not even going to begin to address the Hindu gods thing (since I obviously cant; I didn’t have that conversation, and I have seen absolutely no further evidence of such a practice), I think it’s important that we distinguish something here.
People like MT and her order aren’t concerned with evangelization. It’s not their gift/charism, at least not directly. They simply go in and attempt to bring Christ to the region through their acts of charity. They don’t cause disruptions with local religions, don’t actively seek to convert the masses. They just quite simply attempt to care for the poor and the dying. Even in the face of death, religion just simply isn’t the issue.
Stateside, you’ll see plenty of Catholic Charities offices dedicated to that very same goal.
Mary Kay,
Steve can speak for himself, but this is what he said:
“Frankly, I admit that there are troubling aspects of Mother Teresa’s articulation of the Catholic faith, which I think any orthodox Catholic should acknowledge. I have always been uncomfortable with some things she has been quoted as saying in this regard.”
So, if Mother T has been quoted accurately (which of course is a big ‘if’) then he would say that her ‘articulation’ isn’t great.
Jeb, sorry, I somehow skipped over SDG’s saying that. I should probably hear what SDG finds are “troubling aspects of Mother Teresa’s articulation of the Catholic faith”
But like Scarlett O’Hara, I’ll deal with it tomorrow. It’s time for some sleep here on the East coast.
Steve Camp (et al.),
Just a passing thought or two before I head off to bed…
Truth can always stand the test of scrutiny; error never wants to be challenged.
Would that be the reason James White doesn’t have a comment box on his site? (And as a pre-emptive strike: No, two hours of the “Dividing Line” is not an acceptable substitute for a direct source of continuous literary critique)
Also, as a general note, I get the sense that a select few people here seem almost relieved or perhaps satisfied by Mother Theresa’s lack of total perfection. To this end, I’d like to make two quick points. First, I think we should be VERY careful when attempting to ascribe motives or a particular viewpoint to a person based on secondary information (a forward to a book or a quote allegedly from one of her sisters). This goes double if the person happens to be deceased and can’t defend themselves. Personally, knowing half the things I’ve said in my life that weren’t clear or were just plain garbled, I’d be much happier if I knew that people quoting me 70 years from now would give me the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst (This again would seem to go double if I should be so blessed as to live a life such that my works of charity would bear witness in a global sense, as Mother Theresa’s has).
Second, I’d just like to add for the sake of commenting that even though Mother Theresa did struggle with her personal faith throughout her life, any instances of faltering or hesitancy on her part would most certainly not give credence or merit to any other individual or their arguments against the faith. Nor does it lower the bar for Holiness that God has set before us all. We may humbly take solace in the fact that someone of her devotion and life would struggle just as we do, thus looking up to her as an older sister in Christ, but to look down on Mother Theresa and judge as though her troubles somehow afford us some bonus or advantage is incorrect. I suggest that if we’re in the habit (no pun intended) of branding her as a “Universalist” or a relativist without compelling documented evidence, we might take the opportunity to look deep into our hearts and questions our motives. Perhaps we have a plank in our eye that’s obstructing our view?
God Bless,
Mr. Spock
Because if they die in their ignorance, they will be given a special grace and still be saved and granted heaven some how…
Quite the contrary, they will be judged according to what they know. Simple as that. To introduce to a dying man the gospel of Christ and to demand his assent on his deathbed (or alley) when he may not have been given the grace to accept or even have the presence of mind to understand it in his last moments could do more harm than good. In the worst case you could be helping to condemn him.
Regarding Mother Theresa’s understanding of Catholicism: she was not a theologian and may even have personally held slightly heretical ideas. Many of us do, albeit unintentionally. Problematic elements in her understanding should be considered in that light.
I confirm the broad outlines of what Jeb is saying about my POV.
I might want to further qualify that statement, but let’s leave it as it stands for now.
At the very least, I should want to see this argument further nuanced and less triumphalistically articulated. Catholics should remember there is a lot to be said regarding the work of the Holy Spirit within those ecclesial communities lacking the fulness of the Faith, not to mention perfidy and treason within the visible bounds of the Church. We all live in glass houses, and on all sides, even among the heathens, are a few who put the vast crowd of us to shame.
Having said that, I shouldn’t be surprised to find that the Catholic tradition has a special genius for producing extraordinary heroic virtue. In fact, I think it could be not unreasonably be argued that the extraordinary spirit of service to the poorest of the poor that was the essence of Mother Teresa’s charism, vocation and spirituality is profoundly and inextricably connected with and revelatory of her “catholicity,” of the extent to which she stood in and was shaped by the tradition and culture of the Catholic Church, whereas what we find troubling about some of her articulations regarding other religions and the like, however representative of or integral to her overall worldview they may or may not have been, are not only not necessarily the most helpful point of reference regarding official Catholic teaching, but are simply not connected to or revelatory of her catholicity and the shaping of Catholic tradition and culture upon her being.
I am aware that pressed too far this argument becomes a parody in the form of “Everything good is caused by what I agree with, and everything bad is caused by what I disagree with.” (Christopher Hitchens does this with regard to religion.) However, as I am speaking here not only of the Faith in its eternal truth but also of its cultural and historical baggage, I am certainly more than willing to acknowledge bad as well as good in the total package. In other words, I’m willing acknowledge there are in the Church some problems that are in some way characteristic of the Catholic experience. It’s just that when it comes to Mother Teresa, I happen to think that it is what the world admires her for that is characteristic of the Catholic experience, and what troubles us is not. (I wouldn’t necessarily be able to say this regarding every well-known Catholic figure.)
I certainly think that this question should be very seriously considered — and under B16 I think we can safely suppose that it will be. That said, it is not clear to me that Mother Teresa’s dicta in this regard are sufficiently systematic and analytical to permit any such “getting to the bottom.” And of course either she is in Heaven or she isn’t, and if she is, then she is a saint, and the Church can say so.
Yes. That is precisely why those who make inflammatory charges should be willing to substantiate them, instead of overreacting with charges of “limiting honest and forthright discourse.” Because truth can stand the test of scrutiny, and error never wants to be challenged.
It was the testimony of Mother Theresa’s life that led my future wife to leave Lutheranism and become Catholic.
It was my future wife’s testimony to me that led me to fulfill my Baptist faith by becoming Catholic.
Call it saintly intercession, if you will.
With regards to the accusations that Mother Theresa actively encourage the worship of pagan gods:
No doubt if she had held a stern view requiring conversion to Catholicism before receiving care at the hands of her sisters we would have nothing but hellfire from non-Christians and Protestants.
They would rightly proclaim the whole enterprise a dirty trick that “forced” the sick and the poor to believe.
It is an established practice whenever the Church engages in charity for the poor and sick in non-Catholic lands (spiritual correction of a coreligionist is also a form of charity but does not apply here for obvious reasons) to perform those charitable acts while offering the iron-clad promise not to proselytize those receiving care and aid.
It follows the very teachings of Christ from his story of the good Samaritan. We must do good for goodness sake and not try to opportunistically exploit other people’s momentary weakness as a chance to exercise the sin of spiritual pride.
This means not converting the Jew into Samaritanism but becoming his brother through brotherly love.
My wife has had similar experiences providing for the needs of black Muslim refugees from Africa who escaped to America because of the violent racism preached by their own co-religionists in Africa. She did not hide her faith, but she made sure their physical and spiritual needs were met. She took them to their parish once for a dinner, but never made continued care contingent upon conversion.
When you provide for the needs of those who are not in your faith, you have three choices:
1) Make care available only if they convert
2) Make care available but only attend to their material needs
3) Shower them with love and attention and meet all their needs as best as you can.
The first is not Christian.
The second denies the importance of the supernatural.
The third is agape.
What Mother Theresa did should surprise every one of us. It should surprise us that this obvious act of supernatural charity is anything but obvious to the world.
I just want to point out to the non-Catholics on the list, who may get a false impression from some of the Catholic comments made. The Catholic Church in the CCC is clear that invincible ignorance can not save you. You must have supernatural faith. For as Trent clearly defined faith is the BEGINNING of all justification. The CCC says that God can give the gift of faith in ways known only to Himself, but if a person is to be saved they must possess supernatural faith BEFORE they die.
“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.” CCC 848
Correct, and with it the grace of regeneration, also called sanctifying grace.
Jeb Protestant:
You said, “Steve can speak for himself, but this is what he said: ‘Frankly, I admit that there are troubling aspects of Mother Teresa’s articulation of the Catholic faith, which I think any orthodox Catholic should acknowledge. I have always been uncomfortable with some things she has been quoted as saying in this regard.”
BINGO.
Steve Camp has asked for me to respond to some reported statements by Mother Theresa. I’m pressed for time this weekend, but here goes. . . .
First, I’d deal with the quotations he offers as follows:
1) Quotations not from Mother Theresa herself
In an interview with Christian News a nun who worked with Mother Teresa was asked the following in regards to the Hindus they worked with, “These people are waiting to die. What are you telling them to prepare them for death and eternity?” She replied candidly, “We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods.” (emphasis mine).
A Simple Path is a compilation of the teachings and meditations of Mother Teresa. In the foreword we read, “The Christian way has always been to love God and ones neighbor as oneself. Yet Mother Teresa has, perhaps with the influence of the East, distilled six steps to creating peace in ourselves and others that can be taken by anyone — even someone of no religious beliefs or of a religious background other than Christian — with no insult to beliefs or practices. This is why, when reading Mother Teresa’s words and those of her community, we may, if we choose, replace the references to Jesus with references to other godheads or symbols of divinity.” (emphasis mine).
Since these quotations are not from Mother Theresa herself, I do not know the degree to which they reflect her own views.
2) Quotations from Mother Theresa herself
In her book, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers, she says: “We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.” (Pages 81-82)
The first part of this (up to “we will be satisfied”) is a statement of policy rather than a statement of theology.
What follows is a statement that I find theologically problematic, although defensible in part. It speaks to the condition of an individual who has strong religious convictions (“if that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for him or her,” “if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search”). An individual in this case may be in a state of what is commonly termed “invincible ignorance” (i.e., innocent ignorance of the truth of the Christian gospel).
When dealing with an individual who is dying and invincibly ignorant of the Christian gospel, it is at least arguable that the appropriate thing to do is to allow the individual to remain in invincible ignorance and entrust his salvation to God.
Nevertheless, I am uncomfortable with the reported quotation’s articulation of this matter, and I find it problematic in several respects.
“I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic” (Page 31).
I find this quite problematic. While I can imagine constructions that could be put upon it that could bring an element of truth to the fore (e.g., people of all religious convictions should be helped to become more loving, more moral people), I find the statement on its face to be problematic at best.
“I love all religions.”
I regard this statement in the same way as the previous one. While there are elements of truth in every religion (or else people wouldn’t be drawn to them), this does not mean that every religion is remotely adequate or even positive on balance. As then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger pointed out, some religions are sick and destructive on balance, even apart from the fact that they do not correspond fully to the truth that is revealed in Christ.
“If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there.”
I regard this as true but trivial. Something is growing, but this does not mean that what is growing is adequate or even positive.
“All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”
The statement that “all is God” is obviously untrue if taken literally (that would entail pantheism). If it is taken non-literally–for example, to mean that God works in the lives of all people regardless of their religion–then this is true, but it does not follow that all people are in the condition that God would have them be in. Otherwise Jesus would not have come and commanded us to preach the gospel.
Similarly, the statement that all have access to the same God is true (if anyone prays to the God of the Bible, he will hear them), but it does not mean that all have equal access to him via the distorted understanding of God that they may have due to their religious convictions.
In summary, I find (and have found for years) a number of statements reported to have been made by Mother Theresa to be theologically problematic. While the fact is not to be diminished that she was not a theologian and thus should not be expected to make theologically precise (or even correct) statements on all occasions, I have had a concern about what she is reported to have said in this area, as it does not appear to me to fully correspond with the teaching of Scripture or the Catholic Church.
I have not undertaken the effort to verify whether she actually made these statements, but I find the statements themselves problematic.
If I were the individual assigned by the Holy See to argue against her canonization, statements of this nature–and whether she made them and what she meant by them–would be carefully examined as potential elements in the brief I had been assigned by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to make for why she should not be held up to the faithful (via sainthood) as a model to be emulated.
Jimmy
Thank you for your answers and I will look forward to more in the future with you. BUT, I would still like to have you address these statements within the context of God’s Word rather than opinion.
Two examples:
1. As Luke records in Acts: “Acts 4:10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health. Acts 4:11 “He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (NASB)
1.a. This Scripture clearly refutes MT’s claim that “If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.”
2. Also, the Apostle John states clearly, “1 John 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.”
2.a. This would clearly refute MT’s claim that “All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”
One further question to ponder: the issue here goes to salvation, not to canonization. Do you think that Scripture teaches that one who holds to such views specious errant doctrine is consistent with the profession and confession of a truly regenerated believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? Would not those unsound doctrines constitute “another gospel” – which is no gospel at all? AND worthy of anathema? (Gal. 1:6-9).
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Tim. 3:1-5
Steven J Camp–
No one expects you to understand a spiritual giant such as Mother Teresa, or her interior life at all. No one expects folks who base everything in their faith on FEELINGS to understand the “Dark Night of the Soul.” That is a maturity level beyond your comprehension. So, instead of making a bigger spectacle of yourself by the wild accusations and idiotic statements you make, just run along and go play. When you grow up–if you grow up– then come back and we will discuss this concept with you.
One point I would make on Mother Teresa and her order not pushing conversion on the dying whom they cared for in their last lonely hours.
During the Irish potato famine, there were many Protestant so-called charities which provided a bit of soup and bread to the starving masses. The poor would stand in line for hours and when they reached the head of the line, they would be asked to recite a declaration of rejection of the Catholic Faith, and allegience to the Church and the Pope before they were given their tiny ration of food.
This was a dispicable practice and smacks not of charity but of arrogance and contempt for the poor. And it is not surprising that the ones who are suggesting in this combox that Mother Teresa’s sisters should have done in India what the Protestants did in Ireland are not the Catholics, but indeed Protestants. Some people never learn.
Steve DG:
“That said, it is not clear to me that Mother Teresa’s dicta in this regard are sufficiently systematic and analytical to permit any such ‘getting to the bottom.'”
Why not? Read what she said, talk to people who knew her, ask how she ran her order and what she told sisters who were converts from Hinduism.
Mother Teresa was quoted more than once saying “God wants Christians to be the best Christians, Hindus to be the best Hindus, etc.” so I think she must have something definite in mind.
Steve, Job 40:1-2
Steve,
A couple of comments before I get to MT statements to put somethings in perspective. First in all charity you and I have a completely different understanding of the Gospel message. So you not only object to your understanding of what MT said, but what the Catholic Church teaches. So, no matter what I say about MT’s statements, you will never accept them, without your own conversion.
Second, when someone is Catholic, and profess to be, and has shown docility to the teaching authority of the Church, you give them the benefit of the doubt. You also look at their entire body of writing. For example, you believe St. Paul believed in your Gospel, so when you read him tell born again Christians to be careful because liars, adulterers, etc. will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, you interpret those words to mean something different, then someone who is only reading that section of St. Paul and is only familiar with that section. You do the same when Paul talks about the possibility of him becoming a cast away.
Finally, the Church allows Catholics to purposefully deceive someone using for example a mental reservation, or an ambiguous statement when the person they are communicating with has no right to the information, or to protect themselves or those they love. MT was working in an area where converting people is against the law. A place where she and her order would have been banished from if she went around bragging about making converts. With that said let’s look at HER statements, as opposed to introductions to books, or statements by her religious.
MT’s quote about a person being on “his path to salvation.” Because MT is a Catholic, and has never shown a hint of rejecting the Catholic Church’s teaching on this matter, I would say she is being deliberately ambiguous. In my view the only person that could have no doubt and therefore not be seeking is a Catholic. Therefore, the person is in the True Church. All those that are outside of the Church can not be without doubts as to their path because they lack that union with Christ that all mean need to be without doubt, which union occurs in the highest degree in this world through the Sacraments of the Church, especially the Eucharist. You may say I am twisting her words, but what I am doing is giving them an orthodox Catholic meaning, without contradicting them.
With regard to MT’s statement about making Hindus better Hindus, etc. You could look at it as a Hindu would, the way you are, or you could look at it the way a Catholic does. A better Hindu to a Hindu might mean more devout in the Hindu religion, more committed to the Hindu religion. But to me a better Hindu is one that doubts the false beliefs of his religion, and begins to question their religion. I do not see how seeing MT’s example a hindu would become a better Hindu in the sense of practicing and devout. On the contrary, seeing MT would make him question his religion, and look into the Catholic Faith. Again my explanation does not contradict the words, it only shows a different perspective from which to look at the words.
With regard to MT’s statement about all having access to God. Again all do have access to God. All can pray, for Christ enlightens every man that is in the world, and if they do not recognize the light it is because they prefer the darkness. You and I are most likely going to disagree here. I am assuming you believe in a limited redemption, therefore only the chosen have access to God, but here the disagreement is between you and the Church, not the Church and MT. With regard to all is God, if you change that to All are God’s I think that is closer to the meaning. The idea that MT was a pantheist, is charge that would be in contradiction to much that MT has written and said.
Finally, I would just remind you again that MT was in country where converting people was illegal, and that is why she was not obvious in her public statements. In every chapel of her order there is a picture of Christ crucified and the words “I thirst,” quoting one Our Lord’s final words. His thirst was for souls, and MT knew this, and that is why she had that quote put there. MT had a thirst to bring people to Christ, and I have little doubt that she did. I am sure she converted many on their death bed, or perhaps the priest she called in did the converting, but she wanted people to be united to Christ AND His Church. I am sure of it.
May our Lady keep you forever in the blue shadow of her mantle.
Steve, why does Jimmy need to address these in the light of Scripture? These aren’t exactly controversial ideas. Neither Catholics nor Protestants believe that a person may be saved by anyone except Christ. Neither Catholics nor Protestants hold that worshipping Hindu idols or praying to Hindu Gods would be acceptable at all. Neither Jimmy nor anybody else here needs to quote a Scripture passage condemning such things, and neither Jimmy nor anyone else here is going to quote a verse trying to defend these things, because none of us believe that there is one.
Quoting Scripture is a thing that is sometimes useful when two persons or groups disagree over what Scripture says. It allows people to try to establish what Scripture actually does say on a subject. But we are all in agreement here about what Scripture says. It says we shall have no other gods before the Lord. It tells us not to worship, pray, or serve idols or other gods. It tells us that thre is no other name in heaven by which man may be saved than Jesus Christ. We agree on all of this.
The only real question is what Mother Theresa actually said or what her statements mean. This is what Jimmy was addressing. He was reading her statements and commenting on what his feelings are about them, both if they mean what they seem to at face value and what more acceptable interpretations one might have. In fact, he seems to find them almost wholly unacceptable even given the chance of a more generous interpretation.
We’re already at the stage where we agree on what Scripture says. Quoting it now is not at issue, but applying it. And Jimmy and the rest of us are trying to apply it by looking at Mother Theresa’s words and questioning how closely they match it or how far they stray from it. The only way Jimmy could look at her words in the light of Scripture would be if he took his post on the subject nearly verbatim and added in every paragraph that the reason he finds these things troubling or problematic is because Scripture says such and such here and such and such there, but again you and he and the rest of us agree on this.
So I would like to ask you to explain why you want Jimmy and/or anyone else to look at her words in the light of Scripture. I think we would like to oblige your requests, but we really don’t understand what more you are asking for. Please help us understand, and I am sure many will do their best. God bless.
Shane, thanks for some much-needed lucity and incisiveness.
That’s the right way to investigate; I’m just saying sometimes such investigations are not able to end in a conclusive way due to lack of a systematic approach in the source material. Even with the likes of a Luther, let alone a St. Paul, scholars continue to debate the true meaning of the teachings.
One of the controversies around Mother Teresa and her order has to do with the surreptitious practice of covert baptisms. The claim is that Mother Teresa secretly taught her nuns to ask dying non-Christian patients if they would be interested in a “ticket to Heaven,” and if they replied in the affirmative, this was took to indicate implicit desire for the grace of baptism, and the nuns would surreptitiously baptize them under the cover of cooling their foreheads with a damp cloth. I don’t know whether the claim is true, but it seems at least plausible to me.
Whatever one thinks of such a practice from any of a half-dozen perspectives, at the very least it suggests belief in a unique soteriological value in the Christian way of salvation. Mother Teresa may have said “God wants Christians to be the best Christians, Hindus to be the best Hindus,” etc., but we may also have reason to say that she believed it is better to die a Christian than to die a Hindu.
So, ascertaining what she meant by “God wants Christians to be the best Christians, Hindus to be the best Hindus,” etc., may not be as simple as conducting a few interviews and so forth.
One should also note that India has laws against conversions.
I suspect that the early Christians, when the lions were in full force, might also have said equivocal things in the course of pursuing conversions.
SDG
“but we may also have reason to say that she believed it is better to die a Christian than to die a Hindu.”
Where? Quote the source and show me. I gave you direct quotes from MT–you just gave me opinion; hearsay. That is not permitted on this blog. Haven’t you read the rules? 🙂
Shane:
“So I would like to ask you to explain why you want Jimmy and/or anyone else to look at her words in the light of Scripture.”
Because the Word of God is the only objective truth and standard by which all doctrine is derived. (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jude 3; 2 Peter 1:3-4; Psalm 19:7-11; Psalm 138:2; 2 Tim. 4:1-5)
Mary Kay:
Once again you don’t understand the discussion some of us are trying to have; and you try to list a verse that you take completely out of its context. BUT, at least you tried to go to the Scriptures and for that you are unique here.
Lastly,
Doubtin Tom
“So, instead of making a bigger spectacle of yourself by the wild accusations and idiotic statements you make, just run along and go play. When you grow up–if you grow up– then come back and we will discuss this concept with you.”
Its this kind of intellectual, fact based, lucid, Scripture foundational reasoning that makes me want to repent of any thing I have ever learned about the RCC. Jimmy, you do draw the finest of Catholic theologians to your blog. Pleasure to dialogue with them.
Steve
+J.M.J+
Mother Teresa has often been misquoted, even by devout Catholics. For instance, there is the claim that she once said that Communion in the hand is the greatest sin of our time. Actually, she told someone privately that it saddened her when she saw people receive Communion in the hand – which is not the same as saying it is a sin.
So maybe we should tread carefully with all these alleged “quotes,” let alone the second-hand rumors. We could be dealing with the sin of calumny.
After reading what he posted above, esp. the “Romanist” remark, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to listen to Steve Camp’s music again. I guess his anti-Catholicism shouldn’t surprise me, though; it’s practically endemic to Evangelicalism.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie
Eph. 2:10
Should I take your winky-smilie as a tacit acknowledgment that you are just being silly and that you really know that my non-inflammatory comments do not bear the same burden of evidence governing inflammatory charges?
(Hearsay isn’t the same as opinion, incidentally. The information I cited regarding Mother Teresa and the baptismal practices of her nuns comes from a decidedly hostile source, the very anti-Christian, anti-Catholic and anti-Mother Teresa Christopher Hitchens, who says he has good evidence for his claims. I’m not in a position to evaluate the basis for his claims, but in the present context they are non-inflammatory and can reasonably be offered as suggestive without exhaustive documentation.
Of course, which is why you are wrong to insist on the Bible only, instead of the word of God only. Nowhere does the Bible teach your unscriptural notion that the Bible alone is the only word of God.
And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Note that even actively speaking against Jesus does not preclude God’s forgiveness.
I also note that today’s Gospel reading has some relevance:
“And there will be wailing and grinding of teeth
when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
and all the prophets in the kingdom of God
and you yourselves cast out.
And people will come from the east and the west
and from the north and the south
and will recline at table in the kingdom of God.
For behold, some are last who will be first,
and some are first who will be last.”
It is true, that it warns the Jews that the Gentiles may take precedence over them. It is also wise of the Christian to remember that he, too, may be in the place of Jesus’s Jewish listeners.
“Because the Word of God is the only objective truth and standard by which all doctrine is derived. (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jude 3; 2 Peter 1:3-4; Psalm 19:7-11; Psalm 138:2; 2 Tim. 4:1-5)”
Funny, those verses don’t suggest ANYTHING remotely like that.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 – “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”.
God-breathed? Check… Useful? Check… I must have missed the bits about it being the “only objective truth and standard by which all doctrine is derived”.
Jude 3 – “I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”
Huh? Is this the right verse? I’m not seeing any reference to the scriptures in there, at all.
“His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”
Again, no reference to the scriptures, unless one is trying hard to force one’s views into the text. Eisigesis with a crowbar.
Psalm 19:7-11 –
“The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul.
The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.
The precepts of the LORD are right,
giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the LORD are radiant,
giving light to the eyes.
The fear of the LORD is pure,
enduring forever.
The ordinances of the LORD are sure
and altogether righteous.
They are more precious than gold,
than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
than honey from the comb.
By them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.”
Again, nothing about the written word of God being the exclusive source from which all doctrine is derived. It is a song of praise for the truth and beauthy of God’s statutes, top which I say “Amen!”.. To paint it as supporting (let alone commanding) Sola Scriptura is just wildly out of the ballpark. Such a view can not be derived from this passage, and can be imposed on the passage only with a great effort to ignore the obvious meaning.
Psalm 138:2 –
“I will bow down toward your holy temple
and will praise your name
for your love and your faithfulness,
for you have exalted above all things
your name and your word.”
Amen, again. No support for Bible-Only-ism in here… not even with a magnifying glass. Steve, if God appeared to you and gave you a message for the world, would you insist He write it down? You can’t with any consistency or honesty maintain that every biblical reference to “God’s Word” must be taken to mean His *written* word. Was it the Bible that was “made fleah and dwelt among us”? Are we to understand that “in the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God”? When “the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision”, was it the King James, or a more recent translation?
2 Tim. 4:1-5 – “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.”
Now, this verse actually works right against your thesis; what was it that you suppose Timothy was supposed to be preaching? Was he reading from one of the Four Gospels? No, he was passing on the sacred ORAL Tradition that he received from Paul… there WAS NO “Bible” at this point. The Gospel exists as Truth quite apart from any written copies of it.
If this is the way you play with the scriptures, I can’t say I’d be confident purchasing, say, a used car from you.
Steve, thanks for the belly laugh. What a hoot you are!
Did you have to work hard to be so consistently insulting to others? Or do you come by it naturally?
Once again you don’t understand the discussion some of us are trying to have; and you try to list a verse that you take completely out of its context.
Did you give any thought to why I chose those particular verses? Or, because they did not fit the groove (rut?) of what you expected, you dismissed me as “not understanding the discussion” and dismissed the verses as “out of context.”
There’s a difference between taking something out of context and extrpolating to a new situation. Probably the most basic lesson of the book of Job is that God can do what He wills. And that His ways are far beyond our understanding.
If God chose to be incarnated as a newborn baby, He can do that. If He chose to save his people by being brutally whipped and crucified, He can do that. If God chose to bring people (who live in a land where conversion is against the law) to Him by starting off by practicing the religion they were born into, He can do that. Men for years have been saying, “You know God, that’s not the way it’s done. Let me fill you in on how it’s done.” That’s where you are.
Here’s a Scripture verse or two for you: John 7:41-42. “Does not Scripture say…” Yes, it does, but the people saying that didn’t have full knowledge of the situation.
I’d suggest that’s also true here. You simply do not have full knowledge of the context of what Mother Teresa said.
(a thank you to those who mentioned that India has laws outlawing conversion. I’d forgotten that.)
India does not, IIRC, actually outlaw conversions. It outlaws attempting to convert, and requires that government officials accept a conversion before it’s considered real.
There is a little book simply Titled “Mother Teresa” In My Own Words, it was put out a few years ago by Liguori Press. It was compiled by Jose Luis Gonzalez -Balado. I suggest that it might be a good idea to read it, then you will know what she really said. She lived the Sermon on the Mount (Matt5-1-12)
These are but just two of her actual quotes:
“To me, Jesus is the Life I want to live, the Light I want to reflect, the Way to the Father, the Love I want to express, the Joy I want to share, the Peace I want to sow around me. Jesus is everything to me.”
…and this:
“Someone once told me that not even for a million dollars would they touch a leper. I responded: “Neither would I. If it were a case of money, I would not even do it for two million. On the other hand, I do it gladly for love of God.”
This is what I have to say to all of you nay-sayers…When you pick a dying person up out of the gutters in the streets, carry them to shelter and safety, wash them clean and pick the maggots that are eating their flesh out of them, share what little food you have with them, even if it is just a crust of bread or a tiny bit of broth, we’ll hear of it, you won’t have to tell a soul, word will get out, until then, please have the respect and dignity that is required of us all for one another and for each other’s beliefs. As someone pointed out above, one of today’s readings really does apply here because in Jesus’ own words:
Luke 13, verses
…”28 “There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out”.
29 “And men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God”.
30 “And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.”
Ghandi once said that if Christians lived according to their faith,(as Mother Teresa did), there would be no more Hindus left in India. Amen!!
Mary, thanks. I should’ve looked it up or left it out. But whichever it is, it strengthens that Steve is making pronouncements about situations which he does not fully comprehend.
Amen, indeed, YKWYA! As St. Francis said: “Preach the Gospel always; when necessary, use words.”
Mother Teresa is a great saint.
You either get it or you don’t.
That does not mean everything she said was a 100% clear or even accurate.
That does not mean she did not have doubt and thoughts that were fearful or anxiety or anything else.
But the sum total of her life is one of sanctity.
Her teachings, on the whole, and in the sum, are completely consistent with the Catholic Church.
She probably (I am not the judge) died in a state of grace.
She clearly is an inspirtation to many many many people including non Catholics and may have been the interceder of miracles that God made.
May the name of Mother Teresa be at the altars if it is the Will of God. (in full obedience to the Church). If she is a saint may she pray for us.
I, without much doubt (even Mother Teresa had doubts so I phrase it that way), believe that Mother Teresa is clearly a saint.
I believe it is obvious and clear.
Certainly the popular acclamation of the faithful (which is not how we currently make saints) is clear especially in her adopted India.
She is a saint.
Her doubts and any other issues of faith (again taken out of context perhaps and with conclusions that are not accurate as earlier posts suggest) are actually making her more human and accessible.
Most thinking human beings have doubts.
Most human beings have at least at some point in life, especially modern life but throughout all of human experience, angst and anxiety or even worse mental issues, or depression or perhaps more profound spiritual issues or even contact with the supernatural world or preternatural.
That Mother Teresa was not perfect makes her more identifiable with our ownselves and perhaps an even greater saint.
Frank:
You said, “May the name of Mother Teresa be at the altars if it is the Will of God. (in full obedience to the Church). If she is a saint may she pray for us.”
Here is something so much better:
Rom. 8:27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
Rom. 8:34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
Heb. 7:25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
1John 2:1 ¶ My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
Rest in that hope that Jesus Christ, not the saints, not Mary, not the martyrs, not MT, etc. but HE is praying for us. Amen?
Steve
James 1:19-21
It has become blatantly obvious that no one is here willing to simply open up a Bible and offer biblical support or critique of Mother Teresa’s words. We do this in the Protestant/Reformed camp continually and it helps us to be true to God’s Word and subject to its teachings.
I will respectively leave you as this point.
Maybe someday one of you here will take the time to demonstrate to me Scripturally what MT said is orthodox.
I do appreciate Jimmy at least making some effort in this regard–though not from the pages of God’s Word.
Until then, I remain
Yours for the Master’s use,
Steve
2 Tim. 2:15
Hi, All…
I’m new. Read all the posts. I’d like to thank Doubtin’ Tom and the other Catholics for the fantastic posts.
Some of you Prots…and you KNOW who you are: The errors all of you make will NEVER end. And the one who thinks he’s cute posting falsehoods against Blessed Mother Teresa’s CATHOLIC FAITH: YOU are gonna FIND OUT!
Doubtin’ Tom: Thanks for reminding everyone what the Catholic Irish suffered at the hands of the “bloody” Protestant English.
On Blessed Mother Teresa: So what! Her entire life was a Prayer.
I’m a “Craddle Catholic”, Catholic Schools, etc., and I went through a “Doubting Thomas” phase, too. So, that’s me, St. Augustine, and Blessed Mother Teresa. With me, in fact, it was an sojourn into agnosticism. But, Christ sure wanted me back and He got me back. He even showed me a glimpse of Heaven So…there!
Fellow Catholics: Give’em HECK!
“When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.” Rev 5:8
“Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne. The smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel.” Rev 8:3-4
Mary, are you appealing to scripture? You aren’t supposed to do that. Steve Camp says that Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes, and he won’t hear different.
It has become blatantly obvious that no one is here willing to simply open up a Bible and offer biblical support or critique of Mother Teresa’s words.
It has long been blatantly obvious that you have defined “biblical” to mean — “agreeing with mine.” Down to your lie in “Two New Rule” that Catholics do not appeal to the Bible.
Rosemarie wrote:
After reading what he posted above, esp. the “Romanist” remark, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to listen to Steve Camp’s music again.
Oh, that’s why that name seemed familiar! Wow, it’s been 20 years.
It has become blatantly obvious that no one is here willing to simply open up a Bible and offer biblical support or critique of Mother Teresa’s words.
Actually, you just want everyone to join you in a pile-on of Mother Theresa. By taking some quotes ouf of context, quoting others who may or may not have known her or may or may not be accurately representing her beliefs, without consideration of the duress of working in a country where Christian evangelism is illegal, you expect us to join you in your proclamation of Sit anathema! of the nun whose life was so heroic and faith was so stalwart.
How oddly this thread turned out. It began as a discussion of spiritual darkness which was seen as an opportunity by protestants to once again attack the Catholic Church, this time through the person of a deceased nun. The word rude comes to mind.
Frank:
You said, “May the name of Mother Teresa be at the altars if it is the Will of God. (in full obedience to the Church). If she is a saint may she pray for us.”
Here is something so much better:
Rom. 8:27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
Rom. 8:34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
Heb. 7:25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
1John 2:1 ¶ My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
Rest in that hope that Jesus Christ, not the saints, not Mary, not the martyrs, not MT, etc. but HE is praying for us. Amen?
Steve
James 1:19-21
I guess you don’t like these:
Colossians 1:9 Therefore we also, from the day that we heard it, cease not to pray for you, and to beg that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will, in all wisdom, and spiritual understanding
…
Philippians 1:9 And this I pray, that your charity may more and more abound in knowledge, and in all understanding
…
Ephesians 3:13 Wherefore I pray you not to faint at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.
…
Corinthians 13:7 Now we pray God, that you may do no evil, not that we may appear approved, but that you may do that which is good, and that we may be as reprobates.
…
Acts Of Apostles 8:24 Then Simon answering, said: Pray you for me to the Lord, that none of these things which you have spoken may come upon me.
…
James 5:16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.
Why would Paul pray for the Corinthians/Colossians/Phillipians/Thessalonians/Ephesians? Of what use is it? Why would it comfort them if they believed in your anti-biblical premise that’s there’s no value in having a saint pray on our behalf?
Why would Simon ask them to pray for him? Of what use is it?
Was James lying to us????
God Bless,
Matt
Off italics.
Hey Steve,
why is it that you won’t read the bible cover to cover? It seems you’re simply proof-texting…
hmmm
off?
+J.M.J+
>>>Oh, that’s why that name seemed familiar! Wow, it’s been 20 years.
Yep, a blast from my Evangelical past. I had one of his albums (Shake Me To Wake Me, I think it was called) even saw him in concert almost 20 years ago. I’m very saddened to see his attitude toward Catholics now, but like I said, I shouldn’t really be surprised.
I wish he’d realize that we Catholics *do* believe that Jesus intercedes for us with the Father, but that does not nullify the intercession of other Christians. St. Paul repeatedly asks for his fellow Christians on earth to pray for him (Romans 15:30; 2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 6:18-19; Colossians 4:3; I Thessalonians 5:25; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; Hebrews 13:18, James 5:16). Was he wrong to do so? Should he have instead rested in that hope that Jesus Christ was praying for him and not the saints on earth?
Yeah, I know that’s Christians on earth, not in Heaven, but my point remains – if Jesus’ intercession is all-sufficient, why even bother to ask for the prayers of fellow Christians on earth? Seems to me the argument proves too much.
Also, Mary points out that the Book of Revelation shows the saints and angels in Heaven offering our prayers before God (Rev 5:8, Rev 8:3-4). That’s intercessory prayer, but it doesn’t nullify Christ’s intercession, rather it depends upon it. They couldn’t come to the Father except by Him.
In Jesu et Maria,
Steve,
Protestants DO NOT follow the Bible they follow traditions of men(i.e. Luther, Calvin & Zwingli etc) which nullify the Word of God. Catholics OTOH follow the Traditions of the Apostles (2 Thes 2:15).
Anyway Catholic Apologist David Armstrong(& former Evangelical) has written many Biblical defenses of the Biblical teaching on Communion of the Saints.
Found here:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/02/communion-of-saints-biblical-overview.html
anyway here is a taste QUOTE”Revelation 6:9-10 “And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: (10) And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” {cf. Zech 1:12}
These dead Christian martyrs are uttering what are known as “imprecatory prayers,” pleas for God’s judgment of the wicked and vindication of the righteous (e.g., see Ps 35;69;79;109;139; Jer 11:18 ff.; 15:15 ff.; 18:19 ff.; Jesus in Mt 26:53). Thus, “dead” saints are praying for Christians on earth, and, by logical extension, can be asked for prayers. They are aware of earthly events (Heb 12:1), and are more alive, unfathomably more righteous (Jas 5:16), and obviously closer to God than we are.
They need not be omniscient to hear our prayers, but merely out of time. It makes no less sense to ask for their prayers than to request those of any person on earth. In fact, the prayer above was answered by God who hastens the end of the age (8:1-5). Therefore, if the prayers of the Christians in heaven is so important in this instance, one can only imagine their immense weightiness in the overall scheme of things.”
I posted the question below in the comboxes of the New Rulz post; in case some may not have seen it, I will repost it here. I am truly interested in suggestions/thoughts/input, as I would like to be a good apologist, but I hat getting sucked into black holes that suck time and effort and yield virtually nothing (although I realize that such yields may not be immediate, and may come to fruition years later).
I’ve actually wondered about this question I’m going to propose for quite a while now, even before (but particularly since) Steve Camp has joined these threads (esp. since the Beckwith Chronicles). How should Catholics respond to someone whom we would ordinarily (if he didn’t come with Evangelical creds) label a troll?
As a lifelong Catholic, I was not previously familiar with Mr. Camp or his music. From what I’ve seen of his postings here, it seems that he really doesn’t want to learn about the Church and her teachings or why Catholics believe what we do, but rather seeks to prove the errors of “Romanism.” And yet, even after multiple examples of this, we continue to engage, and continue to get frustrated. When do we say, as SDG has said, that yes, we are deeply saddened (as I truly am) that many people, even our separated brethren, harbor anti-Catholic prejudice, but that we’ve reached the point at which further “dialogue” is futile? To all of you who have had much more extensive experience than I in apologetics, when do you say, “God bless you, I’ll pray for you” but no longer get involved in trying to get the other party to move beyond the prejudice?
I love it when we are able to convey to non-Catholics what we believe and why, but that entails a certain receptivity on the part of the questioner. What if the questioner lacks that good faith?
Also from David Armstrong’s Blog.
Here is a neat summery of the Biblical teachings
A. Prayers for the Dead
Tobit 12:12; 2 Macc 12:39-45; 1 Cor 15:29; 2 Tim 1:16-18.
————————————————————
B. Dead Saints Are Aware of Earthly Affairs
Mt 22:30 w/ Lk 15:7,10 & 1 Cor 4:9; Heb 12:1.
————————————————————
C. Dead Saints Intercede For Those On Earth
Jer 15:1; 2 Macc 15:14; Rev 6:9-10.
————————————————————
D. Intercessory Mediation of Saints and Angels
Tobit 12:12-15; Rev 5:8 and 8:3-4.
————————————————————
E. Dead Saints Appear On Earth to Interact With Men
1 Sam 28:12-15 with Ecclesiasticus 46:20; 2 Macc 15:13-16; Mt 17:1-3 and 27:50-53; Rev 11:3.
————————————————————
F. Guardian Angels
Ps 34:7; 91:11; Mt 18:10; Acts 12:15; Heb 1:14.
————————————————————
G. Angels Are Aware of Our Thoughts
Lk 15:10; 1 Cor 4:9.
————————————————————
H. Angels Participate In the Giving of God’s Grace
Rev 1:4.
I BenYachov would add to this by pointing out Scripture says of the Souls in Heaven that they neither marry nor are given in marrage but are LIKE UNTO THE ANGELS.
So the Bible is clear we can never accept your Protestant human traditions & be faithful to Christ.
It has become blatantly obvious that no one is here willing to simply open up a Bible and offer biblical support or critique of Mother Teresa’s words. Steve 8/26 2:12 pm
Steve, your only response to Mt 25, Ps 42, Job 40 was to dismiss, apparently after given them no thought. You never did respond to John 7, a situation where people told others they were wrong “because it says in Scripture.”
You seem to be willing to discuss only within the box you’ve set aside for God, a variation of creating God in your own image.
As inevitably happens in exchanges like this, it leaves me feeling deeply, deeply thankful to be Catholic.
+J.M.J+
>>>When do we say, as SDG has said, that yes, we are deeply saddened (as I truly am) that many people, even our separated brethren, harbor anti-Catholic prejudice, but that we’ve reached the point at which further “dialogue” is futile? To all of you who have had much more extensive experience than I in apologetics, when do you say, “God bless you, I’ll pray for you” but no longer get involved in trying to get the other party to move beyond the prejudice?
It will depend upon the person and the situation. Even if you realize that someone is utterly closed to what you’re saying, in a public forum it may sometimes be a good idea to continue explaining the Faith anyway for the sake of others who might read the exchange. Others might be open to the Truth and read the thread and join the true Church.
It all depends; there’s really no hard and fast rule. You just kind of realize that a person isn’t open after going back and forth with him for a while. Also, if someone displays utter, vicious hostility to the Catholic Faith, bordering on the satanic, then it’s time to back off and pray for them. Of course, the latter is usually easier to discern in person than online, since tone of voice and the look on the person’s face will display that attitude right away – cues that you usually can’t pick up online.
(And no, I’m not saying that the latter attitude is that of Steve Camp; I have in mind someone else I attempted to talk to more than a decade ago. Just the mention of anything Catholic made his face change from benign to twisted-with-rage within seconds. It was truly scary to behold.)
In Jesu et Maria,
Steve, let me clarify my question.
Given that we all already agree on what Scripture says about having and praying to other gods, what additional analysis would you like someone to do from Scripture? The most I can see we could do is quote the passages that say what we all already accept, so if there is something else in there you would like us to apply to Mother Theresa’s words, please indicate what.
God bless,
Shane
+J.M.J+
Here’s another great Bible passage:
“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.” (Hebrews 12:22-24)
Christians on earth have communion, not just with God and Jesus the Mediator, but with “an innumerable company of angels” and “the spirits of just men made perfect” – the angels and saints in Heaven! We’re not cut off from those members of the Body of Christ who have fallen asleep in Him.
Christ does not have two bodies, one in Heaven and one on earth. There is only one Body of Christ (Ro 12:5; I Cor 10:17; 12:13; Eph 4:4). This means that Christians in Heaven are part of the same Body of Christ as we are! If death did not and could not separate them from Jesus (Ro 8:38-39; II Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:21-23) then it didn’t separate them from us either.
Nowhere does the Bible say “The spirits of the just in Heaven don’t pray for Christians on earth” – in fact Revelation 5:8 shows them doing just that! Nor does the Bible ever say that we don’t need the prayers of our brethren in Heaven. If they are members of the same Body of Christ as ourselves then we do need them, since the whole Body is interdependent: “And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.” (I Cor 12:21).
And no, praying to saints isn’t necromancy. We don’t try to conjure up the saints using ouija boards or whatnot – we just ask them to help us with their prayers. Nor should we ask for a message from them; the Catholic Church forbids divination:
“All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to ‘unveil’ the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect and loving fear that we owe to God alone” (CCC 2116).
In Jesu et Maria,
It was posted:
“Ghandi once said that if Christians lived according to their faith,(as Mother Teresa did), there would be no more Hindus left in India. Amen!! ”
Well I for one must disagree as Mother was a wonderful PERSON, but did very little in the way of missionary/conversions in India.
Was she a great CATHOLIC who should be a saint as compared to being a great PERSON? There are many who are great people who are not Catholic- should we canonize them? Why not make Princess Diana a saint? She had many great causes. Being a great person is important, but being a great Catholic, a fighter for the faith is something else and these new revelations on her life just add fuel to the fire. There are quite enough saints one can pray to without canonizing questionable candidates just because it is the popular thing to do.
Mother Teresa did enough in India that anti-conversion laws were passed that everyone knew were targetting her, in particular.
At a retreat for priests in Dublin in 1977(available on tape as “Cor Ad Cor Loquitur”), Bishop Sheen stated that Mother Teresa had taken 25,000 sick and dying people off the streets of Calcutta, and that 15,000 of them had come to Christ.
Mother Theresa’s acts of charity are based on both the acts and the teachings of Christ.
The act of Christ would be his miracle of saving ten people, nine who were Jews and one who was a Samaritan. Only the Samaritan returned to express thanks — to which, Christ lauded him saying his faith has saved him.
In the story of the good Samaritan, Christ says the Samaritan was the brother of the injured Jew. Note He did not say “friend” or “ally” he said “brother”. For those of you who have an understanding of covenant theology, this idea should leap off the page as the forging of familial bonds is the basis for salvation through rebirth in regenerative baptism.
Also, there are other statements such as “What you do to the least of these, you do to me.” and “Love covers a multitude of sins.”
Between Protestants and Catholics the debate regarding works and faith unfortunately takes precedence but clearly there is much more going on when two strangers reach out in love. As Catholics, we have always believed our choices and actions resonate throughout time and eternity but exactly how deeds of agape affect others in the eternal sense is not really known.
We only know that the effect seems to be very positive. Perhaps the gift of faith that causes the heart to melt forth in love comes at that moment and this, depending on the condition of life afterward, can lead to eternal salvation.
I find it singular, however, that Mother Theresa’s sisters are being attacked by Hindus for worshipping Hindu idols, if Steve Camps allegations are true.
Bewildering behavior indeed.
StubbleSpark:
I find it singular, however, that Mother Theresa’s sisters are being attacked by Hindus for worshipping Hindu idols, if Steve Camps allegations are true.
Bewildering behavior indeed.
Illogical, at best.
From what I recall SAINT Patrick by his little lonesome converted all of Ireland from pagan Worship
Why couldnt one expect the same from Mother Teresa who instead of pushing forth Catholicism is now revealed she MAY have done the opposite?
She is a wonderful humanitarian and person and a great face of the church for charitable works-but NOT a saint
Perhaps the gift of faith that causes the heart to melt forth in love comes at that moment and this, depending on the condition of life afterward, can lead to eternal salvation.
StubbleSpark, thanks. That’s what I was getting at with psalm 42.
If nothing else, this exchange with Steve C has really brought home something I read in an apologetics book (maybe Catholicism and Fundamentalism?), that Protestants only discuss from a pre-established track of Scripture and don’t know how to respond to Scripture outside that well-worn track.
If she’s in Heaven, she IS a saint.
I wonder how God revealed to him that Mother Teresa is “NOT a saint”, considering that He has given very few people the ability to discern the state of someone else’s soul?
Bill912,
I think the “angel Moroni” must of revealed that to him and also that he is his own magisterium.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“It has become blatantly obvious that no one is here willing to simply open up a Bible and offer biblical support or critique of Mother Teresa’s words…”
I’m not interested in defending Mother Teresa’s statements. I, and others, have already said that (for one thing) it is difficult to tell even what they mean, especially in the context of her every word being watched closely by Indian authorities. As they stand, they are questionable. In other words, I and many other Catholics have no problem with YOU having a problem with these statements. Many of us do, too. Knock yourself out. Why would I attempt to defend views that (a) I’m not sure I understand, and (b) find problematic to begin with? The teaching of the Church does not stand or fall on the musings of one nun, saint or not.
What I DID do was open up a Bible and show that your insistence on the Bible Alone as the sole rule of faith is built on simply nothing. You paste a string of scripture references at the end of your statement to give the appearance of scriptural weight and authority, but on investigation these references give NO support to the Protestant dogma of Sola Scriptura – not even a little.
Sola Scriptura can not be defended with Bible verses because Sola Scriptura is unscriptural. Even anti-scriptural.
Tim J.,
Your response to Steve Camp’s twisted (2Peter 3:16) references was excellent.
I fear that because he is so proud of his Korah “license” that he will just keep driving in circles.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
This also if from the book Mother Teresa in my own words…
“An important public official of my country once askd me, “Mother Teresa, you say you pray for me. Tell me the truth:don’t you want me to become a Christian?”
I answered him, “If anyone has something they value a great deal, that person is very likely to want his or her friends to share it. I am convinced that faith in Christ is the best thing to have in the world. I would like for all to know and love Christ at least as much as I love him. Obviously, I would also like for you to know and love him. But faith is a gift from God, and he gives it to whomever he chooses.”
Instead of making up comments on what Mother Teresa might have said, or telling people what you heard she said, or did, why not instead go to the source? Bearing false witness is a sin.
>She is a wonderful humanitarian and person and a great face of the church for charitable works-but NOT a saint.
And when the Church proclaims her a Saint it will show that God did NOT consult you for your opinion. Better luck next time son.
A Prayer Card for the President of India
“I went to Rashtrapati Bhavan to call on the president of India. When he met me, he pulled out of his pocket a card on which I had written the prayer of Newman:
‘Jesus shine through me’
which we say daily in the chapel. I had given it to him when I had met him before and had told him to say it in times of difficulty.
He told me, holding the card in his hand, ‘I say the prayer and it gives me consolation in times of stress and difficulty'”
from Reaching Out in Love – Stories told by Mother Teresa page 54
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
This also if from the book Mother Teresa in my own words…
“An important public official of my country once askd me, “Mother Teresa, you say you pray for me. Tell me the truth:don’t you want me to become a Christian?”
I answered him, “If anyone has something they value a great deal, that person is very likely to want his or her friends to share it. I am convinced that faith in Christ is the best thing to have in the world. I would like for all to know and love Christ at least as much as I love him. Obviously, I would also like for you to know and love him. But faith is a gift from God, and he gives it to whomever he chooses.”
Instead of making up comments on what Mother Teresa might have said, or telling people what you heard she said, or did, why not instead go to the source? Bearing false witness is a sin.
Thanks, You Know Who.
Well, Steve C, there’s the quote you were looking for. Does that help?
Mind, I don’t pretend that this by itself resolves all difficulty around everything that M.T. has been quoted as saying. I remain uncomfortable about some things. But clearly it would be a mistake to take a few uncomfortable sayings and rush to a conclusion like “Mother Teresa obviously believed that it didn’t matter what religion people practiced.” It’s a question calling for discernment and careful judgment.
And my personal favorite…
A Prime Minister’s Visit
“On one occasion Mother received a visitor – the most important man in the country then, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.
Later Mother told a friend:
‘Mr. Nehru came to see our house in Delhi. As I always do with visitors, I first took him to the chapel say, ‘Let us first pay our respects to the Master of the house.’ I went in and knelt down in prayer. Nehru stayed at the door and made a gesture of respect.” (emphasis mine)
from Reaching Out in Love – Stories told by Mother Teresa page 30
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Bill 912 posted:
“I wonder how God revealed to him that Mother Teresa is “NOT a saint”, considering that He has given very few people the ability to discern the state of someone else’s soul?”
Where SDG Posted
“If she’s in Heaven, she IS a saint. ”
And Ben Yakov posted: (Ben-are you still dabbling with Catholicism?)
“And when the Church proclaims her a Saint it will show that God did NOT consult you for your opinion. Better luck next time son.
Gee-You are so quick to condemn when someone “judges” and says MT is NOT a saint-but you are so quick to judge and say she IS a saint! Hypocrits at their best are you not?
More will come out on MT, as she did little for the spread of Catholicism but she should not be blamed for this as she was a product of the Ecumenical “All religions are equal” nature of the church over these past 40 years.
Telling someone who is worshipping false idols as Hindu’s do that they are heading down the wrong path to salvation was deemed not allowed (as JPII even participated in such worship getting marked with Shiva) so she should not be blamed.
If the Pope himself participated in such events as AP pictures have shown, why blame poor MT? The standards are so low now for sainthood does it matter anymore? Used to be dying for the faith as a marytr was the benchmark. Now it is just being a good humanitarian
Somewhere the “angel Moroni” is singing.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
SDG did not say that Mother Teresa is a saint. Note the qualifying phrase: “If she’s in heaven”.
Ben Yakov presumes that the Church will proclaim her a saint (something that seems likely but not definite), and therefore does imply his belief in her sainthood. However, even he does not say “she is a saint”. Changing the “when” to “if” might make it more accurate, but even if she isn’t canonized, it’s a pretty safe bet that God wouldn’t have consulted you (or me, or anyone else, for that matter).
I have been to one of Blessed Mother Teresa’s houses and it is true, the first thing one of the Sisters does, that greets you at the door, is take you to the Chapel to greet Jesus Himself!!
Although I never had the honor of meeting her myself, I know that just from witnessing the other Sisters and Brothers of her order that they were all filled with the love of Christ. I am convinced that anyone they ministered to knew that Jesus was alive and working through them.
One of the Sisters asked for my name and the names of my family, she wrote them all down and said that the next time Mother came she would give them to her, she said the Mother prays for all who visit one of her houses.
I have since read that when Mother prayed she prayed for everyone in the entire world.
May we all come to know, love and serve the Lord!
Just an additional comment: Of the two books I own by Mother Theresa, “In My Own Words” and “In the Heart of the World”, I can certainly say that they contain nothing less than excellence in witnessing to Christ and the Gospel. In both books, she makes it extremely clear that Jesus is the heart of her ministry and at the same time subtly conveys a profound sense of orthodoxy and allegiance to the Church. Nowhere in either is there any mention of Hindu worship or Universalist-style relativism. To be honest, there are a couple points where she writes things that could be interpreted as such if they are ripped out of their context and tortured into service, but its textual surroundings always erase all doubts. Take for example, this passage from “In the Heart of the World”:
“Another aspect of our life of contemplation is simplicity, which makes us see the face of God in everything, everyone, everywhere, all the time, and His hand in all the happenings; and makes us do all that we do … under the loving gaze of the Father, being totally availably to Him in any form he may come to us.”
While a couple points in there sound like they could be interpreted as “Different religions are all pointing to the same thing”, she quickly follows in the very next sentence with:
“What is contemplation? To live the life of Jesus. This is what I understand – to love Jesus, to live his life in us, to live our life in His life.” P.34
Such a positive affirmation of Christ rarely accompanies a relativist. That in mind, I can see that she means to see the glory of God through his creation, and see the face of Christ in the poor and afflicted. However, I really think one would be hard pressed to say that she rejected Jesus or somehow believed in more than one God.
As for her ministry, I think the following quote seems to highlight her line of thinking on the logistics aspect of evangelization:
“The Gospels remind us that Jesus, before he taught the people, felt compassion for the multitudes that followed after him… … How did he put his compassion into practice? He multiplied the loaves and the fish to satisfy their hunger. He gave them food to eat until they couldn’t eat any more, and twelve baskets were left over. Only then did he teach them.” P. 15
So even if one doesn’t agree with her particular approach, you can’t say it was because she wasn’t trying to follow Christ or be faithful to the Gospel.
There are tons of applicable quotes in both texts, and a couple other people have already posted good ones above, so to save space I’ll stick with those two. But in any event, let it be known that in her public writings, the treasures and things Mother Theresa considered worthy to share with the world and important for our benefit, she was a loyal and loving servant of our Lord. Those who have “evidence” to the contrary will have to rationalize their theories with her whole written corpus (which speaks in direct contradiction to said “evidence”), and then further with her constant witness to the Lord through her lifestyle. Thus far, however, all I’ve heard is “He said/She said” secondary evidence, quotes that are ambiguous and seem problematic (without any other context), and quotes from books “interpreting” Mother Theresa. Hardly compelling evidence to accuse someone of renouncing Christ or being a relativist, though.
God Bless
Matthew posted:
“John,
SDG did not say that Mother Teresa is a saint. Note the qualifying phrase: “If she’s in heaven”.”
Matthew-while your at it with your splending play on the English language (Modernism anyone?)-Can you please tell me what your definition of the word “is” Is?
John,
As usual you are just wrong.
The following extract is from James Akin’s “The Nazareth Resource Library”
“Q: Someone in the schismatic group the Society of St. Pius X told me that when the Pope was in India he had his forehead anointed by a Hindu ‘priestess of Shiva’ and that there is a photo to prove it. Is this true?”A: There is a photo of the pope having his forehead anointed by an Indian woman, but, she was a Catholic, not a Hindu priestess! She was giving a traditional Indian form of greeting known as ‘Aarti,’ which has no more religious significance than a handshake in western culture or giving someone a wreath of flowers as a welcome in Hawaii.
“A letter dated November 22, 1994 from the Pontifical Council for Social Communications explains the custom and its role in Indian society:
” ‘Indian Catholics…use “Aarti” when a child returns home after receiving First Holy Communion, and when a newly married couple are received by their respective families. Nowadays, “Aarti” is often performed to greet the principal celebrant at a liturgical event, as it was on the occasion shown in the photograph. On such occasions, “Aarti” is usually offered by a Catholic married lady, and certainly not by a “priestess of Shiva” as has been alleged.’
“The letter, by Archbishop John P. Foley, president of the pontifical council, went on to note: ‘Use of the “Aarti” ceremonial by Indian Catholics is no more the worship of a heathen deity than is the decoration of the Christmas tree by American Christians a return to the pagan rituals of Northern Europe.’
“Your schismatic friend in the Society of St Pius X should check his facts before spreading such malicious gossip about the Holy Father (cf. Acts 23:1-5). He was simply about to say Mass and received the traditional Indian form of greeting for the celebrant.” (2)
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Matthew, I appreciate your clarification on my behalf. FWIW, insofar as the issue may turn on what I did or didn’t say, my personal preference would be for whatever quarrel John may have with me to go without further rebuttal.
John, b. Granting that c. On condition that
*is* (v.) 3rd person sing. present tense of BE.
Here’s another definition you might find helpful:
*if* conj. 1.a. In the event that
Hey, free legal defense! 😀
Steve has posted a detailed article addressing much of Catholic theology written by a dear friend of his, William Webster.
Check out
THIS POST
Cindy Bleil,
We understand you are a follower of Steve Camp but please don’t jump from post to post pasting the same link.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Well why not? I’ve noticed that some of you do it rather frequently! 🙂
Besides I want to make certain you see it. Thanks!
Follower of the Lord Jesus Christ,
Cindy
Cindy, that’s impossible. Steve Camp doesn’t know a thing about Catholic theology. He has in his mind a straw-man church that *he* calls “The Roman Catholic Church”, to which he attributes certain doctrines. He then attacks the doctrines of his straw-man church, and demands that Catholics defend those doctrines. Any resemblance between his straw-man church and the Catholic Church are purely coincidental.
Cindy Bleil,
Because as I said on the other thread…
His post is the same driving in circles pretending to drive straight he has done in all his comments here. With all the usual insults.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
After reading what Steve himself posted on here about his other friends I have no interest in reading it.
Cindy,
I started reading the post you linked to, but I hadn’t made it through the first paragraph before I read this:
“What was very interesting to me, not one Roman Catholic at Jimmy Akin’s blog could, would, or did give one Scriptural reference to either support [Mother Theresa’s] words or deny them (examples below). Not one.”
Now this is flatly false. Do a search on this page for Matthew 19.16,21, Matthew 25:35-40, Job 40:1-2, or Psalm 42 and you can see for yourself.
Having found that Mr. Camp could not accurately report a discussion that he just had (and on a not insignificant point), I read no further.
Word, Blackadder.
SDG, I will accede to your preference. It just galls me how logic (if P then Q) gets ignored, misunderstood, or misused sometimes.
Ah, John has returned, spreading his unique brand of hatred and slander. A woman gives her entire life to serving the poor, and John says she did little for conversions in India. Perhaps John would prefer she beat them over the head with a baseball bat until they convert.
Funny, I’ve never met John, and know him only from his posts here, but I would be willing to bet that he does nothing for the poor, absolutely nothing (except perhaps telling them to get a job). He and Steve Camp should debate. John’s an actual example of Steve’s caricature of Catholics who neither know nor care about the Gospels.
But I guess John believes he converts more people by quoting medieval councils and declaring everyone to be heretics, as opposed to a woman who simply fed people and cleaned their wounds, no strings attached.
Ah, John has returned, spreading his unique brand of hatred and slander. A woman gives her entire life to serving the poor, and John says she did little for conversions in India. Perhaps John would prefer she beat them over the head with a baseball bat until they convert.
Funny, I’ve never met John, and know him only from his posts here, but I would be willing to bet that he does nothing for the poor, absolutely nothing (except perhaps telling them to get a job). He and Steve Camp should debate. John’s an actual example of Steve’s caricature of Catholics who neither know nor care about the Gospels.
But I guess John believes he converts more people by quoting medieval councils and declaring everyone to be heretics, as opposed to a woman who simply fed people and cleaned their wounds, no strings attached.
Snowman,
Thank-you so much for your defense of a humble woman who devoted her life to Christ!
Even the Apostles, Martyrs and all other Saints struggled with their Faith in the darkest moments of their lives.
No different here.
Only a LIAR claims that they’ve NEVER suffered such trial and tribulations with such doubts.
Look at JOB for goodness sake!
Were we not in the process of debating Steve & giving him Bilical arguments for the Communion of Saints & other Biblical defenses of Catholicism?
Now we have this John person here sucking up all the oxygen. Yeh that’s helpful.
Blackadder:
Steve did not say that there wasn’t any Scripture mentioned on this thread, he did say that no one had used Scripture to either defend or deny in specific the exact words of Mother Teresa that he quoted.
With all do respect to Mary Kay, her use of Scripture is so “prooftexted” it’s difficult to take her “I think I’ll just make it mean whatever I think it should mean” seriously.
Word.
So, I would humbly ask some of you who are theologically astute on Catholic theology (i.e., SDG, Jimmy Akin) to respond Scripturally to the exact quotes that Steve did post. I for one would like to see you defend these statements from the Word of God.
Cindy
Sure, Cindy; right after you show us where it says in the Bible that we have to show you where it says in the Bible.
Cindy,
He said that no one “could, would, or did give one Scriptural reference to either support [Mother Theresa’s] words or deny them.” The examples I gave do just that. That you do not find them convincing is irrelevant. I don’t find Mr. Camp’s prooftexts for Sola Scriptura convincing, but it would be absurd for me to say that he hasn’t given Scriptural references in support of his claim.
Used to be dying for the faith as a marytr was the benchmark
John
Hussein of the Shia
and Joseph Smith of the Mormons also
were martyrs for their respective faiths
Apparently “Bible alone” means it is MY BIBLE ALONE and I says what it says. Reminds of a great post by Tim J. Bible Scholar of the Year.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“Blackadder:
Steve did not say that there wasn’t any Scripture mentioned on this thread, he did say that no one had used Scripture to either defend or deny in specific the exact words of Mother Teresa that he quoted.
Posted by: Cindy Bleil | Aug 27, 2007 1:49:01 PM
”
“Frank:
You said, “May the name of Mother Teresa be at the altars if it is the Will of God. (in full obedience to the Church). If she is a saint may she pray for us.”
Posted by: Steve Camp | Aug 26, 2007 1:46:30 PM”
Is Steve Camp doing the “Laura” thing and assuming other names on the thread/blog???
I mean, is Cindy Bleil = Steve Camp?
S/he’s responding in the same format/manner as Steve Camp.
By the way, it’s amazing how on these threads, people often experience sex-changes at a moment’s notice!
Kinda creepy!
+J.M.J+
>>>He and Steve Camp should debate.
What would they debate about? They both agree that Mother Teresa was an idolater and not a true follower of Jesus Christ. Birds of a feather….
>>>With all do respect to Mary Kay, her use of Scripture is so “prooftexted” it’s difficult to take her “I think I’ll just make it mean whatever I think it should mean” seriously.
I knew this would happen. If we don’t quote Scripture we are accused of not arguing from the Bible. If we do quote Scripture we are then accused of prooftexting and misinterpreting Scripture.
It’s the Evangelical version of “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.”
In Jesu et Maria
I think an important point we’re missing here is that what Mother Teresa believed isn’t really all that germane to her work. She was called to be a caretaker, not a theologian or a preacher. I doubt she was actually a universalist, although those quotes Steve brings up can look that way, but even if she was, so what? Other saints have been wrong on theological issues. She fulfilled the calling God gave her, and did it with obedience in the face of adversity.
Ironically, Steve Camp was a major factor in my coming to Rome, although he certainly wouldn’t have meant to be. Sometimes people speak more truth than they know.
Years back, I saw Tim Staples on “The Journey Home”. He had been an Assemblies of God minister, who had heard Jimmy Swaggart challenge Catholics to read the early Church Fathers. Tim decided to do the same, and came to a shocking conclusion: These guys, the earliest of whom were taught by the Apostles, were Catholics. I had just started reading Jurgens’ “The Faith of the Early Fathers”, a compilation of their writings. I decided to start over, and use a highlighter to highlight the specifically Catholic doctrines in their writings. In the 3 volumes, I used up 3 highlighters.
Rosemarie said:
What would they debate about? They both agree that Mother Teresa was an idolater and not a true follower of Jesus Christ. Birds of a feather….
Well, that’s true, but they both have a knack for seeing right past a point that someone tries to repeatedly make. The two of them going at each other would be a welcome respite for us (and good entertainment if one could witness it).
Esau,
You’re absolutley right about the tribulations she suffered. I certainly can’t relate to that degree of suffering and self-sacrifice. I’d be interested to hear if John or Steve/Cindy have so given of themselves, and experienced the poverty and suffering of others so deeply, that they might occassionally have spiritual doubts.
With all do respect to Mary Kay, her use of Scripture is so “prooftexted” it’s difficult to take her “I think I’ll just make it mean whatever I think it should mean” seriously.
Very, very funny coming from the “do it yourself interpretation” crowd.
I wondered when the “I think I’ll just make it mean whatever I think it should mean” response would show up. Unfortunately, Steve did not choose to ask me directly. Instead, he dismissed my comments and me by saying that I “did not understand the discussion.”
Jim from the other thread – and I wish Steve had stuck to just one thread, trying to follow one topic on two different threads is unnecessary – said that Steve was of the restrictivist camp which he defined as Retrictivists believe ONLY THOSE who formally profess Christ can be saved and that there is no such thing as “Invincible Ignorance”.
If that’s true, I wish Steve had said as much so I would know where he was coming from.
The other thing that occurred to me is that Steve is operating solely out of his head. His discussion is very cerebral. As I noted before, the people that Mother Teresa took in were debilitated and in pain which makes a purely cerebral approach difficult and indeed, (an unnecessary) burden.
If Steve indeed has a belief set that does not include invincible ignorance, I can see where he would not understand Mother Teresa’s quotes, but Mother Teresa was working from a Catholic framework that includes the possibility of invincible ignorance. She acted from her Catholic foundation to the extent that the cirumstances of the people being close to death and the laws against prosyletizing would allow.
on to part 2
Esau,
You’re absolutley right about the tribulations she suffered. I certainly can’t relate to that degree of suffering and self-sacrifice. I’d be interested to hear if John or Steve/Cindy have so given of themselves, and experienced the poverty and suffering of others so deeply, that they might occassionally have spiritual doubts.
Snowman,
Thank you so much for accentuating this fact!
I mean, think about it —
People who merely live ordinary lives barely witness the several injustices of the world; just from that little they know of, they already become very despondent and, in fact, skeptical about whether or not there is a God in all this.
How much more Mother Teresa who was actually in the midst of all that suffering, pain, poverty and torture???
It’s just like Jesus crying on the Cross:
Mt 27:46:
46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying: Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? That is, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?
What matters above all is that Mother Teresa persevered to the end!
Mt 24:13:
13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.
Bill912
The question remains, are you going to continue to find a problem with my answer and still not open the pages of the Bible to defend one of your “saints”?
Even if you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, the Catholic Church does believe in the authority of God’s Word. Certainly you aren’t opposed to the Catholic churches views of the Bible, are you?
Love believes all things, so I will try this again:
1. 1Th. 5:21 “but test everything; hold fast what is good.”
2. Acts 17:2 “And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
3. Acts 18:24 ¶ Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. Acts 18:28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
4. 2Tim. 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
5. Heb. 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
The Word of God is the Christians full and final authority on how we test everything and examine all truth claims made by anyone today, whether they be Protestant, Evangelical, or Catholic. Any true Catholic affirms the divine inspiration of Scripture and its veracity.
Now, if you are able, please answer my question about Mother Teresa’s words.
Esau
No, I am a woman and live in Michigan. I know that Steve lives in Tennessee. The fact that we post in a similar manner doesn’t mean we are the same person – but thank you. I am very flattered.
It’s funny, I notice on these threads that most of you sound exactly the same to me. Am I to assume that you have a multiple personality disorder or that you are androgynous? IOW, are you Mary Kay in blogging disguise? It would make sense because you both say the same things over and over again.
To quote Shania Twain – “Man! I feel like a Woman!!”
Cindy
Cindy,
I answered you in the other thread. Let’s not keep duplicating content.
If Steve doesn’t believe in invincible ignorance, then psalm 42 was lost on him.
This is the paragraph(16) from Lumen Gentium:
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.
ital off
Esau, gee whaddya know. All this time that I’ve said something to you, I was actually talking to myself. Who’d a thunk it? :^) (why isn’t there something to show an eyeroll?)
I got “It’s good to read the scriptures” out of those quotes; I agree. Now where is the part about the Bible being the sole rule of Faith?
Or, I could say: “My interpretation of the Bible is that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Since the Bible is the only authority, I’m right and you’re wrong.”
Please show me the fallacy of that statement from the Bible.
IOW, are you Mary Kay in blogging disguise?
Uhhhh… although I believe Mary Kay is a sweet and kind lady, I think anybody with a reasonable mind here could tell that we are two distinct persons — especially if you were to observe our writing styles and behaviour throughout the blog.
I was merely making reference to:
“Laura = Art = Bart = Q = Elmar = Carla = Ted and that’s just in this post and a few other recent ones.
Yes. One busy, busy troll. Almost industrious, you might say. Like I said, I’m very curious why. ”
Posted by: SDG | Aug 24, 2007 2:49:33 PM
And judging from your comments which is similar in both format and writing style to that of Steve Camp, I just thought that perhaps you two were one and the same person.
That’s true. Esau does tend to use formatting marks a little more than I do. :^)
Cindy, since you seem to be the current spokesperson for Steve’s view, what is your view about invincible ignorance? Do you believe that a person will go to Hell if circumstances are such that he or she did not know the Gospel?
Cindy, since you appear to have missed it entirely, please refer to my Aug 26, 2007 10:24:45 AM post which demonstrates – from Steve Camp’s own Bible verses – that Sola Scriptura is totally unsupportable from scripture and is, in fact, anti-scriptural.
>I got “It’s good to read the scriptures” out of those quotes; I agree. Now where is the part about the Bible being the sole rule of Faith?
Cindy is clearly prooftexting. If we Catholics do that, Evangelicals claim that it shows we can’t properly defend our beliefs from the Word of God. Yet when they do the same thing, it’s suddenly definitive proof that whatever notion they are trying to defend is rock-solid biblical truth. Love that Protestant double standard.
That’s how the Evangelical game of “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” works as my wife said. Catholics are held to different standards than Evangelicals when it comes to proving doctrine from the Bible.
Here’s a way to formuate it: In practice Evangelicsls believe they don’t have to produce explicit biblical testimony for all their particular doctrines. They can see that implicit or inferred testimony from Holy Writ is sufficient for acceptance of their doctrines. However, they demand that we spell out every Catholic doctrine explicitly & plainly from Scripture & do not allow us to make inferences or imply Catholic doctrines from Scripture at all. One standard for me another standard for thee.
However, comically, in some cases where Catholic doctrine is explicitly spelled out in the Bible & the Holy Writ flatly contradicts Protestant doctrines then the Protestants ignore what the Bible plainly & literally says & say that the Catholic is being too hyperliteral.
Examples: Protestants believe in salvation by “faith alone” in the face of James 2:24 & the fact that Paul says we are “justified by faith” but never adds the word “alone”, this is a classic example. Protestants reject the plain, literal interpretation of “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man & drink His Blood you shall have no life within you” . . . “Baptism now saves you” … “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them” . . . “Was not Abraham our father justified by works” “Harken unto the Traditions I have taught thee” ETC.
These inconsistancies have shown me Protestantism is NOT the religion of the Bible. It is not the Faith of Jesus. Catholicism is the only Bible religion.
Correction on my part I wrote:
>Retrictivists believe ONLY THOSE who formally profess Christ can be saved and that there is no such thing as “Invincible Ignorance” & thus all non-Christians below the age of reason are without exception damned.
Sould say “all non-Christians ABOVE the age of reason..etc.”
Interestingly & contraditory modern Restrictivists in general believe in infant salvation even though infants like invincibly ignorant non-Christians can’t formally profess Faith in Jesus.
False teachings are funny that way.
I’m waiting for Cindy and/or Steve and/or Jeb to tell me if a person who’s never heard of the Gospel will go to hell.
I’m a patient waiter.
But I’ll bet that I won’t get an answer.
Mary Kay– How about this… Jesus’ adoptive father, Joseph, is presumed dead before Jesus started to preach. Since Jesus hadn’t started up yet, it’s reasonable to assume that Joseph didn’t profess his faith in his son as the Son. Thus, by that logic, St. Joe would be in hell…. (yeah, I don’t think ANYONE would go for that!)
Moses and Elijah also died many years before Jesus was even born. Yet we know (from Matthew 17:1-8) that they aren’t in hell.
It was posted, among others:
“Ah, John has returned, spreading his unique brand of hatred and slander. A woman gives her entire life to serving the poor, and John says she did little for conversions in India. Perhaps John would prefer she beat them over the head with a baseball bat until they convert.”
Hmm…I guess not telling Hindus and other pagan worshippers NOT to pray to their idols as Mother Teresa and well documented-for them to pray to their pagan idols and that they can be saved-Is hatred on my part!!
So funny, here is a woman of Christ, who as reported in this book even had doubts about transubstantiation, telling Hindus they can be saved if they are good Hindus and pray to their idols and that is OK and should be a saint???
Ecumania gone wild, New Video here in the church these past 40 years where you actually have a woman as poster child of the church telling pagan worshippers to continue their pagan worship. Is not suffering here on earth much less than suffering in death and in the afterlife? Does she not care about their souls as one must belive in Christ to be saved as Jesus said himself-goading these people to damnation? And she is the best the church has to offer along with JPII these past 40 years in way of saints ??
Sad Sad Sad
Ben Yachov posted:
“Were we not in the process of debating Steve & giving him Bilical arguments for the Communion of Saints & other Biblical defenses of Catholicism?
Now we have this John person here sucking up all the oxygen. Yeh that’s helpful.”
Ben-are you tired of being Mark Shea’s puppet for today as you always are (Ben is a regular on Mark Shea’s blog, the man who if you dont follow in lockstep to his wacky beliefs deletes your posts) and here to bother us on JA???
Please go back, Mark Misses you!
Snowman posted:
“Funny, I’ve never met John, and know him only from his posts here, but I would be willing to bet that he does nothing for the poor, absolutely nothing (except perhaps telling them to get a job).”
Snowman-I do know the poor, and work with them in soup kitchens and other forms with family. I have nothing but admiration for MT for what she did as a PERSON, but as a Catholic she was horrible and again is NOT a saint by any means for the simple reason due to her Ecumania beliefs as a representitive of the church in India she told Hindus and Buddhists to continue to worship pagan idols, (forget Catholic, not even Jews pronounce such as the 1st commandment is very clear) and though she may have been taking care of those persons needs here on earth-pushed them to damnation instead of offering them a bible and telling them about the glories of Christ and the ONE TRUE CHURCH by which no other way can one be saved
I think the oxygen level just went down again.
John you just accused the Pope of participating in Hindu worship & getting marked with Shiva. Inocencio proved that charge false & even documented it. Instead either telling us why Inocencio was wrong or apologizing for smearing the Vicar of Christ you throw out another set of unsubstanciated charges (violating DaRulz).
This bate & switch & refusal to own up to what you charge seems to be the typical tactic employed by you anti-Catholic Protestant Fundamentalist types. Why should I now believe your latest round of smears?
It’s all together tiresome.
BTW as to your specific charges.
>Hmm…I guess not telling Hindus and other pagan worshippers NOT to pray to their idols as Mother Teresa and well documented-for them to pray to their pagan idols and that they can be saved-Is hatred on my part!!
So funny, here is a woman of Christ, who as reported in this book even had doubts about transubstantiation, telling Hindus they can be saved if they are good Hindus and pray to their idols and that is OK and should be a saint???
The pre Vatican II Catholic Encyclopedia in it’ sentry on Idolatry says QUOTE”
The guilt of idolatry, however, is not to be estimated by its abstract nature alone; theconcrete form it assumes in the conscience of the sinner is the all-important element. No sin is mortal — i.e. debars man from attaining the end for which he was created — that is not committed with clear knowledge and free determination. But how many, or how few, of the
countless millions of idolaters are, or have been, able to distinguish between the one Creator
of all things and His creatures? and, having made the distinction, how many have been perverse
enough to worship the creature in preference to the Creator? — It is reasonable, Christian,
and charitable to suppose that the “false gods” of the heathen were, in their conscience, the
only true God they knew, and that their worship being right in its intention, went up to the
one true God with that of Jews and Christians to whom He had revealed Himself. “In the day
when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ . . . . . the gentiles who have not
the law, shall be judged by their conscience” (Romans 2:14-16). God, who wishes all men to be
saved, and Christ, who died for all who sinned in Adam, would be frustrated in their merciful
designs if the prince of this world were to carry off all idolaters.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley,
Archbishop of New York
JOHN.
Anyone who is in Heaven IS a saint. Anyone who IS NOT a saint IS NOT in Heaven.
Unless you are sure Mother Teresa IS NOT in Heaven, you CANNOT say she IS NOT a saint.
So stop saying it.
Thus it is reasonable to conclude MT never told anyone specifically to worship idols or false gods but rather to follow their conscience & and worship the only “True God” they knew.
Plus there is the “charge” of atheist anti-Mother
Teresa gadfly Christiphor Hitchens(I’m sure Steve & John could get together with him & share their mutual contempt for this pius woman) that MT instucted her nuns to invite dying Hindus to embrace Jesus & recieve Baptism on their deathbeds as a sure ticket to Heaven.
Ironically Hitchens makes this charge to refute the claim MT endorced religous pluralism & show she was a dogmatic norrow minded Fundamentalist like the rest of us Christians who believe only Jesus was the way too Heaven.
The irony Atheists do her a better service then certain so called Christians (are you listening John & Steve?).
SDG,
You really have to stop confusing the anti-Catholic Protestants (like Steve, Cindy & John) with THE FACTS. It hurts their brains. Do be kind all that reading of CHICK COMICS clearly does a number on the cerebellum.
One last thought. We Catholics REJECT the Protestant heresy of the “perspicuity of Scripture”. Why should we accept the perspicuity of Mother Teresa? In short is doesn’t matter what she SAID. What matters is WHAT SHE MEANT.
Our Lord Jesus literally SAID “If your right eye offends thee pluck it out etc”. So taken at face value was Jesus an advocate of self-mutilation? Clearly not. Jesus MEANT something else other than what he said.
So what did Mother Teresa MEAN by these statements? Well when measured against the backdrop of Catholic teaching she clearly didn’t mean to endorce idolatry but to preach Jesus & save souls as well as bodies.
It’s not hard people. One mearly has to turn on BOTH one’s heart & HEAD to figure this out.
John’s hijacked yet another thread. Another good topic down the tubes…
Forgot to :^) and say thanks for Foxfier’s example. I especially like the adroit “his faith in his son as the Son.”
Good question. Of course, many of us are still trying to figure out what Steve Camp meant by his statements. And he’s alive and can answer for himself.
Of course I’m more interested in what Mother Teresa meant than in what Steve Camp meant. First, though, I need to know more about what she actually said, not just a few isolated quotations.
After all, one wouldn’t want to rush to judgment based on a few quotations without knowing more about the context and the person’s overall worldview. Because the measure you measure with will be measured back to you, you know?
It was posted:
“John you just accused the Pope of participating in Hindu worship & getting marked with Shiva. Inocencio proved that charge false & even documented it”
Please provide me then once again proof that cow dung representing the sign of shiva was NOT placed on the Popes forehead where AP photographers have documented such???
John,
I posted this in response to your false claim in this thread:
Posted by: Inocencio | Aug 27, 2007 11:08:06 AM
Please read s l o w l y.
The following extract is from James Akin’s “The Nazareth Resource Library”
“Q: Someone in the schismatic group the Society of St. Pius X told me that when the Pope was in India he had his forehead anointed by a Hindu ‘priestess of Shiva’ and that there is a photo to prove it. Is this true?”A: There is a photo of the pope having his forehead anointed by an Indian woman, but, she was a Catholic, not a Hindu priestess! She was giving a traditional Indian form of greeting known as ‘Aarti,’ which has no more religious significance than a handshake in western culture or giving someone a wreath of flowers as a welcome in Hawaii.
“A letter dated November 22, 1994 from the Pontifical Council for Social Communications explains the custom and its role in Indian society:
” ‘Indian Catholics…use “Aarti” when a child returns home after receiving First Holy Communion, and when a newly married couple are received by their respective families. Nowadays, “Aarti” is often performed to greet the principal celebrant at a liturgical event, as it was on the occasion shown in the photograph. On such occasions, “Aarti” is usually offered by a Catholic married lady, and certainly not by a “priestess of Shiva” as has been alleged.’
“The letter, by Archbishop John P. Foley, president of the pontifical council, went on to note: ‘Use of the “Aarti” ceremonial by Indian Catholics is no more the worship of a heathen deity than is the decoration of the Christmas tree by American Christians a return to the pagan rituals of Northern Europe.’
“Your schismatic friend in the Society of St Pius X should check his facts before spreading such malicious gossip about the Holy Father (cf. Acts 23:1-5). He was simply about to say Mass and received the traditional Indian form of greeting for the celebrant.”
Now be a man a admit you are wrong and take back your false claim.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
SDG, it looks like a very good book.
John, why don’t you start your own blog?
>Please provide me then once again proof that cow dung representing the sign of shiva was NOT placed on the Popes forehead where AP photographers have documented such???
No dung was placed on the Pope’s head only oil. The woman who placed the oil wasn’t a Hindu she was a Indian Catholic. If you have evidence she placed dung on his head produce it. Put up or shut up anti-Catholic. Like a Catholic would acturally put animal waste on the Vicar of Christ!
I have to “prove” dung WAS NOT placed on the forehead of the Pope? Yeh philosophically that is called “proving a negative”. You can’t prove a negative everybody with modest education knows that.
Why don’t you just admit you are wrong & don’t know what you are talking about? Or you can hold on to that pride & continue to make yourself look silly. Your choice.
Here is the original charge made by the SSPX COMPLETE WITH PHOTO!
http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id70.html
Yeh John. I downloaded the Photo & I don’t see any dung. Care to explain that?
My respect for the “research skills” of anti-Catholic fundamentalists drops expotentally by the second.
+J.M.J+
IIRC, St. Therese of the Child Jesus was afflicted with doubts about transubstantiation during her life (I read this in a book many years ago; I will try to track down the source). She even experienced spiritual dryness for most of her nine years in religious life.
Also, St. Vincent de Paul suffered a severe temptation against the faith for more than a year. Here’s an exerpt from the book _Vincent de Paul: Saint of Charity_ by Margaret Ann Hubbard:
“At Marguerite’s court he had made one friend, a doctor of theology who had preached all over France and was famous for his knowledge of the doctrines of the Church. Now a terrible affliction had come to him. He was so assailed by doubts that his faith had been destroyed, and he had no belief in anything….
Vincent advised the unhappy man. “Point toward Roman as an act of faith. And I will ask God to visit yhour doubts upon me instead of you.” The doctor’s mind cleared, and he was once again able to pray.
But now God exacted payment from Vincent. Unable to pray, afraid to sleep because of the awful nightmares, his nights became so filled with terrors that he would go out and roam the streets of Paris…. But he felt no rebellion. This was the bargain he had made with God. He wrote our the Apostle’s Creed and pinned it over his heart, asking God to take his touching of the paper as an act of faith. More than a year went by, and the little folded paper had to be renewed many times. Vincent spoke to no one of his torment. Stolidly he kept to his routine as almoner and went whenever he could find time to the Charity Hospital. (pp 42-44)
The devil often tempts saints to doubt, and God permits that to happen so that the saint can gain more merit by resisting the temptation. So I don’t see how doubts (which are not the same as disbelief anyway) disqualify a person from sainthood. Rather, such an example of perseverance can be a great inspiration and encouragement for us.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
John writes:
>>>Please go back, Mark Misses you!
FWIW, Mark is on vacation right now.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
MaryKay writes:
>>>John’s hijacked yet another thread. Another good topic down the tubes…
Actually, I fully expected this to happen from the beginning. I was even surprised when the anti-Catholic Evangelicals started in first!
Mother Teresa used to be something of a hero to traditionalists because she didn’t like the practice of “Communion in the hand.” Now it seems at least a few of the more extreme trads have turned on her.
In Jesu et Maria,
“FWIW, Mark is on vacation right now.”
And, FWIW, I am happy to see Ben Yachov posting here. Perhaps if we all shout together it will drown out the noisy gong.
It was posted:
“” ‘Indian Catholics…use “Aarti” when a child returns home after receiving First Holy Communion, and when a newly married couple are received by their respective families. Nowadays, “Aarti” is often performed to greet the principal celebrant at a liturgical event, as it was on the occasion shown in the photograph. On such occasions, “Aarti” is usually offered by a Catholic married lady, and certainly not by a “priestess of Shiva” as has been alleged.”
Indian Catholics? Are we talking “pagan worshipping” American Indians who injected their pagan worship into the Holy Mass as Mother Teresa allowed in India, or are we talking about “Indian” as in Asian Indian??
So either way you have blashphemed and paganized the mass whichever excuse you use!!! Are these oils allowed this Aarti????
Can you please show me some proof where the Vatican says Aarti is to be allowed in the worship and for a pope to get these “oils” on his head???? Are they blessed by a priest first???
All hogwash!
I will hang out here for a bit till I get bored & my short attention span turns……..elsewhere…..HEY! Is that a New Red Dwarf webpage!!!!!!!!!!!!
BOYZ FROM THE DWARF!!!!!!!!
IN SPACE NOBODY CAN HEAR YOU SMEG!!!!!
John,
I have provided the documentation that shows you are wrong, again…
That documented information is from Jimmy Akin so tread lightly, even his heroic patience must be wearing thin.
St. Augustine of Hippo, Pray for us!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
So I guess John is implicitly admiting there was no dung involved? Well that’s something…….
>Indian Catholics? Are we talking “pagan worshipping” American Indians who injected their pagan worship into the Holy Mass as Mother Teresa allowed in India, or are we talking about “Indian” as in Asian Indian??
I reply: In addition to sucking up all the Oxygen John wants to give us all APPLES & ORANGES. Note John, Indians & Native Americans have nothing to do with each other. They are not the same thing.
There’s a good fellow.
Aarti is a secular practice. Not religious. It is no more pagan than a Christmas tree. You sound more & more like a Protestant Fundamentalist by the minute. Now you are using THEIR heterodox arguments.
>So either way you have blashphemed and paganized the mass whichever excuse you use!!! Are these oils allowed this Aarti????
I reply: Like I said don’t hurt John little brain with facts. His mindless devotion to anti-Catholic Protestant Dogma will not hear of it.
Next he will condemn the Pre-Vatican II Popes who uses Christmas trees & accuse them of mixing Druid worship in the Mass.
>Can you please show me some proof where the Vatican says Aarti is to be allowed in the worship and for a pope to get these “oils” on his head???? Are they blessed by a priest first???
Since the Pope allowed it & he is the Supreme Legislature on liturgical matters you have no right or authority to question him.
There is dung here in every desprate post you make John. Stop making yourself look silly. It’s to much of a temptation for the rest of us.
Steve Camp and Cindy can just relax —
He has the free services of Judas Iscariot, ‘John’, working for them to attack the Catholic Church in their stead!
With so-called ‘traditional’ Catholics like these, why would any wonder at how terrible things had gotten in the Church?
Thank God for His Holiness, Saint Pope John Paul II, who brought forth the Springtime!
In the past, the Catholic churches I attended during Sundays and, certainly, Holy Days of Obligation were barren. You could count the people attending.
But now, with the ever rising number of Protestant converts coming into the Church and the spiritual renewal happening within the Catholic Church, as promoted by both JP II and Benedict XVI, the churches are filled to the brim!
Not to be click-ish, but it would be nice if more of such people came into the Church and people like ‘John’ left it!
I know — it’s bad of me to think like that, but I think that poison in the well analogy that somebody offered in the past fits perfectly here.
In part of her post, Cindy said this:
“It’s funny, I notice on these threads that most of you sound exactly the same to me.”
…and to that I say—-I take that as a compliment, it must be that unity in the Body of Christ. 🙂
I take that as a compliment, it must be that Unity in the Body of Christ. 🙂
AMEN!
Perhaps I am mistaken or not remembering correctly, but I could swear that I recently (one or two months ago) heard someone commenting on Mother Teresa’s Dark Night and how long it lasted…
However, it was also said, at the very, very end—the last few weeks of her life–she did come to experience the loving and merciful presence of God.
I thought I heard Fr. Benedict Groeschel say this on his “Sunday Night Live” program. Did anyone else hear this? Has anyone else heard this?
Interesting article on the subject of her dark night.
Mother Teresa’s letters show heroic spiritual struggle
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
>Not to be click-ish, but it would be nice if more of such people came into the Church and people like ‘John’ left it!
Not really, then they would have even less grace & most likely woud become more vicious.
An Atheist once asked C.S. Lewis to comment on a Christian woman he knew who was a crab vs. a fellow Atheist he knew who was a nice person. C.S. pointed out something to the effect of “Well if that Craby Christian woman didn’t believe imagine hqw much more of a Crab she would be & if that nice guy Atheist believed imagine how much more of a nice guy he would be.
Something to that effect.
+J.M.J+
I would also like to call attention to Christopher Sarsfield’s post earlier in this thread, which seems to have become buried and overlooked. Here is an excerpt from his reply to Steve Camp:
With regard to MT’s statement about making Hindus better Hindus, etc. You could look at it as a Hindu would, the way you are, or you could look at it the way a Catholic does. A better Hindu to a Hindu might mean more devout in the Hindu religion, more committed to the Hindu religion. But to me a better Hindu is one that doubts the false beliefs of his religion, and begins to question their religion. I do not see how seeing MT’s example a hindu would become a better Hindu in the sense of practicing and devout. On the contrary, seeing MT would make him question his religion, and look into the Catholic Faith. Again my explanation does not contradict the words, it only shows a different perspective from which to look at the words.
With regard to MT’s statement about all having access to God. Again all do have access to God. All can pray, for Christ enlightens every man that is in the world, and if they do not recognize the light it is because they prefer the darkness. You and I are most likely going to disagree here. I am assuming you believe in a limited redemption, therefore only the chosen have access to God, but here the disagreement is between you and the Church, not the Church and MT. With regard to all is God, if you change that to All are God’s I think that is closer to the meaning. The idea that MT was a pantheist, is charge that would be in contradiction to much that MT has written and said.
I really recommend that everyone who hasn’t done so read his whole post of Aug 26, 2007 4:37:52 AM, since he makes some excellent points.
In Jesu et Maria,
I think C.S. Lewis said something about pagans unknowingly responding more and more to the most Christian elements of their faith (true repentance, resisting temptations, becoming more loving, self-sacrificing, grateful, humble, etc.) and rejecting the least Christian aspects (superstition, magic, legalism, salvation by works, etc…) as one way in which we might see them as becoming “better” Hindus or Buddhists or what-have-you, while also becoming more Christian.
I think this could come about authentically only through the action of the Holy Spirit.
Rosemarie
I would love to do just that, however, I have no idea how I even got here, let alone be able to figure out how to get to a post that was written a few days ago. (I just now realized that their are two different topics–one is the Antarctic Night of the Soul and the other is the Arctic Night of the Soul, I have posted on both, (I am sure a headache will manifest itself later.)
However, I do have yet another quote from Mother Teresa, in her own words, (from the book by that title.)
A man, a follower of the Hindu religion, came to our Home for the Dying in Kalighat at a time when I was busy curing the wounds of a sick person. He watched me for a while in silence. Then he said, “Since it gives you the strength to do what you do, I have no doubt that your religion has to be true.”
So much for her not converting people as some of the naysayers on here have claimed, seems to me all they had to do was watch her and they were converted. Was it St. Francis who said:
“When necessary, use words.”? (sometimes it isn’t even necessary)!
If we’re expecting John Iscariot to apologize for slandering a pope and Mother Theresa, I suspect it will be a long wait. I don’t think John apologizes for anything. But then, he’s never wrong, is he? The evidence against him presented above must be mistaken. That’s why he’s so upset about Mother Theresa’s occassional doubts, because John knows everything, has a complete and perfect knowledge of the Catholic faith (better even than the recent popes), and thus never has any doubts. Maybe he’ll soon he educating us with a series on EWTN. Oh wait, there’s a lot of converts on EWTN, and we’ve already heard what he thinks about those “psuedo-Catholics”.
The arrogance is breathtaking. Perhaps he’s in front of the mirror worshipping his god at this very moment.
I have no idea how I even got here
but you’re doing just fine!
Rosemarie, funny how John sounds like a Protestant.
Not really, then they would have even less grace & most likely woud become more vicious.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th):
You’re most likely right!
Perhaps absent the grace of the Sacraments of the Church which Christ gave to us through the Apostles, who knows what else might happen?
God bless you for your charity!
Mary Kay,
…funny how John sounds like a Protestant.
Exactly. It amazes me that John doesn’t realize how often he not only agrees with the protestants on this blog but joins in on their attacks against the Church. Birds of a feather, I guess.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Karen, no, i missed that one, but I wouldn’t doubt that Fr. Benedict Groeschel would have known.
(marykay-thank you:)
You mean John isn’t a Protestant?
You all make me laugh. Just last year in Canda was a perfect example of the kind of “Catholicism” that is being promulgated and allowed in India under the guise and approval of the Church and MT, where Indians (from India)worshipped as Hindus and I quote:
“The Presider would be a certain Father Thomas D’Sa, Director of the National Biblical Catechetical Liturgical Centre (NBCLC) of the Indian Bishops’ Conference in Bangalore, India. The flyer pictured a “Jesus” dressed like a Hinduized Catholic priest, squatting in front of a large plate on which rested a huge “host” the size of an Indian unleavened bread called chappati.”
So this is what you have, the Novus Ordo mass which is protestant in nature but open to so many wonderful innovations, now having Hinduism indoctrinated!!
And here is your “aarti”, and it has never been sanctioned by the church and you have JPII participating in it himself!!
“He had earlier told them, “We shall also welcome you with an Indian gesture called arati, with flowers and with a lamp”. As a dancer demonstrated how the arati plate is waved in three circles”
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-religion/1684992/posts
When Our Lady of Guadeloupe appeared to St. Juan Diego, she appeared as, and was dressed like, an Aztec girl. (Shudder!)
“The flyer pictured a “Jesus” dressed like a Hinduized Catholic priest, squatting in front of a large plate on which rested a huge “host” the size of an Indian unleavened bread called chappati.”
So, John, you are surprised – no, scandalized – that an Indian painting of Jesus looks like… an Indian? With Indian-looking unleavened bread?
Defend, if you please, all those European-looking paintings of Jesus, with the auburn hair and the aquiline nose? You DO realize that Jesus looked like any other Jewish guy? When was the last time they used matzos for the host at your parish? How do you justify the wild liturgical innovation that led to the thin, plain wafers most of us now use? Speak up, man!
Are you under the impression that God Himself set down the specifics for the design of our current commonly-used host, like He did the measurements for the Temple?
In China, they paint pictures of Jesus and the Apostles that look Chinese. In Africa, it may astound you to learn, there are depictions of Jesus with (gasp!) rather dark skin.
This is the very definition of “Catholic”… different everywhere, and yet the same. You truly have a mind like a steel trap… hard, cold and closed tight.
John,
I pity you.
Everytime you feel like posting you should instead attempt to slowly read (and understand) this letter. All your “arguments” are clearly answered in this letter from Roniel Aledo, Captain (Ret.) US ARMY to Bishop Fellay.
As always you are in my prayers.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
(Does someone else want to tell John or should I??)
John, I’m sorry to have to break this to you but… both Blessed Mother Teresa and John Paul II are deceased and have been for more than 2 years, (in Blessed Mother Teresa’s case, its been about 10.) Sorry you believe everything you read and see, my father taught me not to do that when I was about 3.
The train-wreck that this thread has become should be a perfect example to Steve Camp and Cindy Bleil (as well as John, but he already knows everything) of the value of actions over words. Mother Theresa showed love and mercy to the people she met in India, following the example of Jesus. She lived out the Gospel. She simply loved them, no strings attached. That was her evangelism, her preaching. She preached with her actions.
Now suppose she had taken Steve Camp’s approach. What would have been the result? Was anybody here converted by Steve and his arrogant attitude? Suppose Mother Theresa had been preaching Christianity to people in India. Meanwhile, down the street, some evangelical missionary is spouting off about the Catholic Church being full of error (maybe even throwing in some whore of babylon references). Now what is this poor Indian person supposed to think? Two Christians trying to convert him to two different versions of Christianity. Then a Lutheran shows up and says they’re both wrong, but the Catholic Church is more wrong. Then John shows up (assuming the Latin Mass is available in India) and says everybody on earth is wrong except him, and that he is, in fact, the authentic Catholic Church. Is all this talk going to convince anyone of anything other than the foolishness of Christianity? Is any of this talk going to be more convincing than the example of a poor old woman cleaning a leper’s wounds?
People like Steve Camp and John live to condemn others to hell. They actually seem to get joy out of speculating on who will be enduring everlasting torment. I can just see the evil smirks on their faces as they comtemplate it. This woman never condemned anyone to hell, she simply loved. Which Jesus said was the greatest commandment. Yet John and Steve seem to know nothing of love. And if you guys don’t know love, then you don’t know God. Period. You’re Pharisees, condemning Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath, because that’s against the rules, rather than rejoicing and giving thanks for this great show of love and mercy.
But Snowman, Actions is hard. Typing on me ‘Puter is fun.
Snowman, may you never melt, but you did just melt my heart, thank you for those beautiful words!!
Oh, Steve, you may have noticed, I used some Scripture references there, as you requested. No, I didn’t put down the book-and-verse references, but they should be familiar to you if you know your Bible as you claim. For example, In Matthew, Jesus welcomes those into heaven who fed the hungry and clothed the naked. It doesn’t say he first vetted them to ensure their theologolical understanding was perfect (something that would eliminate every Protestant in history from consideration for everlasting life).
Another verse says that charity covers a multitude of sins. I can only imagine how many sins Mother Theresa’s charity would cover.
This reminds me, like the Koran Kissing incident, of those who tore their garments and wailed “What need have we of further witnesses!?”
But wisdom is proved right by all her actions.
Snowman,
Excellent comments!
Now in an attempt to get back on track:
The Transformation of Mother Teresa
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Definition of “arati”
http://www.krishna.com/main.php?id=531
“Arati (pronounced ar’ a tee) is an offering of respect, welcome, or worship to an exalted person. Since the most exalted person is the Supreme Lord, it is most appropriate to offer arati to Him.
Arati is one aspect of Deity worship. During arati, auspicious items are offered to the Deity.”
So the Hindu was offering to JPII was that he was God, like any other pagan form of worship which has now infiltrated into the Holy sacrifice of the mass
http://www.cfnews.org/beatipagan.htm
As published in the Catholic Family News at the time of MT death:
“It was a triumphant day for paganism. Simon Cardinal Lourdusamy had reached the zenith of his career of Hinduizing the Catholic Church, whilst his opponent, the late Indian Resistance leader Victor Kulanday, was resoundingly defeated. It was October 19th, 2003, and in front of an audience of millions (courtesy of television), Mother Teresa of Calcutta was allegedly beatified in a Hinduized papal Mass in St. Peter’s Square.
The seeds of this false worship were sown back in 1969 by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India and the chairman of its Liturgy Commission, Archbishop Lourdusamy of Bangalore. Their subversion of the Faith in India is exposed in Kulanday’s book, The Paganization of the Church in India.
Briefly, in the name of inculturation, and with much subterfuge, Lourdusamy incorporated twelve Hindu gestures and rituals into the Sacrifice of the Mass, thus effectively Hinduizing it. Yet, since the pantheistic hodge-podge was termed “Indianization” instead of “Hinduization,” and a means of “adapting the Indian peoples’ own way of expressing reverence and worship to God the Father and to Our Lord Jesus Christ,” it received Vatican approval within ten days. ”
John you already got nailed on your false claim the Pope recieved the “Mark of Shiva” & had dung placed on him. Both charges have been proven to be factually false.
When that fell apart you came up with this novel claim that the Aarti ritual is somehow out of line or wrong. You haven’t interacted with any arguments your whole mojo is “Heads I win tales you lose”.
Beyond pathetic at this point if you ask me.
Mother Teresa radiated joy in the midst of her “Dark Night of the Soul”. Joy is one of the marks of Christ’s followers. When we are without joy, it is a sign that something is wrong with our relationship with Him.
John,
You seem to have gone from objecting to the aarti because it is not approved by the Vatican to objecting to it because it is. One might be tempted to draw the conclusion that you just can’t be satisfied.
Did the aarti have no more significance than a handshake? Or was it the recognition of JPII as God. It’s anyone’s guess how it was seen by those who were there. There were many there. It could have had difference significance to different people. The apologetics letter offers one view.
Thanks for the kind words, guys. I hope I haven’t been getting too hot under the collar, but this business of tearing down people who’ve done so much good is quite frustrating.
Looking back a bit, Tim J. makes an interesting point about C. S. Lewis saying pagans sometimes did a better job of living out a gospel they had never even heard. I wonder if that’s a big part of the difference between Steve Camp and Catholic teaching. He places a lot of value on the name of Jesus (I recall him quoting a couple times a verse about “no other name…”). Mary Kay, I believe, pointed out above that most of the people being helped were very sick, or even dying, and didn’t have the strength to go through instruction. I think that may be the difference: Steve doesn’t think they need instruction, as long as they “give their lives to Christ”. They may think Jesus is Vishnu’s younger brother. but as long as they say his name, they are saved, like it’s some sort of magic word.
We, on the other hand, see that it’s pointless to just convince someone to call out at the last moment to Someone they don’t even know.
Jesus isn’t just a word we use, a name we call out at the altar call. Jesus is the Word, and the Word is Jesus. So someone who doesn’t know Jesus (such as a Hindu) can do a far better job of living the Word than Steve or John (or me, for that matter). They may not be Christians according to Steve’s criteria, or Catholics according to John’s criteria, but couldn’t it be said that the Hindu did a far better job of proclaiming Jesus as Lord than Steve and John with their condemnations. You proclaim Jesus as Lord by your actions, not by putting up a sign in front of your worship building saying “Jesis is Lord”. Talk is cheap.
+J.M.J+
Once again, she was an (East) Indian Catholic woman, not a Hindu.
Also, note that your quote says that aarti is “an offering of respect, welcome, OR worship to an exalted person.” The operative word here is “or.” Aarti clearly doesn’t always involve worship. It is essentially a greeting, which can take the form of a sign of respect toward an important human being OR an act of worship toward a deity.
(Similar to how “Hail” is a greeting we could use toward any human being, including the Blessed Virgin in the “Hail Mary,” but also to Christ Himself, as in the traditional Catholic hymn “Hail Jesus Hail.” Just because we hail Christ our Lord, however, does not mean that we deify Mary when we pray the Hail Mary. Even so, just because Hindus offer aarti to a pagan idol doesn’t mean the aarti that the Indian Christian woman offered to the Pope was an act of worship.)
In Jesu et Maria,
>Definition of “arati”
>http://www.krishna.com/main.php?id=531
>”Arati (pronounced ar’ a tee) is an offering of respect, welcome, or worship to an exalted person. Since the most exalted person is the Supreme Lord, it is most appropriate to offer arati to Him.
>Arati is one aspect of Deity worship. During arati, auspicious items are offered to the Deity.”
I reply: So what? You gave the Hindu definition of Arati not the Indian Catholic one. I’m sure the Lutheran theological encylopedia defines “Justification” differently then Trent.
>So the Hindu was offering to JPII was that he was God, like any other pagan form of worship which has now infiltrated into the Holy sacrifice of the mass.
The woman was an Indian Catholic silly person. Read the definition more closely & try to process.
“is an offering of respect, welcome, OR worship to an exalted person.”
Notice the word “OR”. As in either/or. This is a case of either/or NOT both/and.
Thus logically the Indian Catholic woman was merely givng the Pope “an offering of respect, and welcome”.
Your neo-Protestant arguments not withstanding.
http://www.cfnews.org/beatipagan.htm
>As published in the Catholic Family News at the time of MT death Etc:
I reply: These idiots can’t tell the difference between recieving the Mark of Shiva (whatever that is Vs an Arati greeting. Why should I listen to anything they have to say?
John,
I remind you tread lightly. Jimmy has warned you three times. The documentation I quoted that you called hogwash is from his website.
If he starts getting emails about your inability to actually engage in a discussion and your constant posting of the same nonsense over and over you will be disinvited.
You have my pity and my prayers.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John is just desperate to find something, ANYTHING to complain about. Clearly he lacks the Christian humility to say “I was mistaken. I am sorry for that.”.
Repent John. Repent. God will hold every lie you post here against you.
Be careful of condemning John along with his words.
Only God can judge the person.
Amen, Smoky Mountain. I don’t think he’s posting things he know to be untrue. I think he really believes what he posts.
Thanks Smoky Mountain, I’ve perhaps been one of those getting a bit personal.
I should clarify something from my previous post. I said that I thought a Hindu could be a better Christian than someone who called himself a Christian, if he lived a life of love. Lest I be accused of being a universalist or an ecumaniac, I want to point out that the key words are “could be”. Being a Christian, and particularly a Catholic, makes it far easier to live out the Gospel. For starters, the Church teaches us how to love. I may think if I sleep with as many women as possible, that I’m spreading a lot of love, but the Church teaches that that’s not authentic love. And secondly, the Church gives us a greater capacity to love by bringing us the grace of God through His sacraments.
So hopefully, with that, I haven’t strayed into heterodoxy. 🙂
+J.M.J+
I would like to post this snippet about St. Therese of the Child Jesus’ spiritual trials, which I mentioned above:
“We have described earlier the troubles, fears and scruples which afflicted Therese when she was still a child. These were only the beginning of her soul’s martyrdom which was to be her special torment during her life in the cloister. Scarcely had she entered Carmel when trials began to assail her. First came the test of her love, and to some degree, of her faith. Her soul was parched with spiritual dryness; darkness enveloped her. Jesus hid Himself and kept silence. She seemed to walk in an underground in which she was unable to see anything and which seemed to have no exit. Even her retreats made before her reception and profession, were passed in a desert climate.
“Next came a torturing trial of her faith and her hope, a testing much more severe than the first. Heaven now seemed to be veiled forever. It was as if a wall rose before her and blocked her road. When doubts entered her mind about the blessed life beyond; if, to reanimate her hope, she tried to cling to the happiness she had formerly foreseen, she seemed to hear a diabolical voice shouting that this was an empty dream and that annihilation was the lot of her destiny. If at times there was a gleam of light, it was but for one moment, and her martyrdom began anew with increased intensity.”
(from Complete Spiritual Doctrine of St. Therese of Lisieux, by the Rev. Francios Jamart, O.C.D., p. 207)
This was, of course, on top of the physical sufferings that she endured from the TB that ultimately took her life. Nope, the saints didn’t have it easy; they suffered temptation to doubt as much as the rest of us, if not more.
In Jesu et Maria,
Be careful of condemning John along with his words.
Only God can judge the person
There is nothing wrong with condemning people’s sinful actions and bringing these to their attention.
Ez 33:8:
8 When I say to the wicked: O wicked man, thou shalt surely die: if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked man from his way: that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand. (DRV)
Of course, in Titus, it does say:
Ti 3:10:
10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: (DRV)
There is nothing wrong with condemning people’s sinful actions and bringing these to their attention.
I completely agree.
Amen, Smoky Mountain. I don’t think he’s posting things he know to be untrue. I think he really believes what he posts.
bill912:
That doesn’t make it right.
I mean, there are several examples of folks who strongly believe that their erroneous notions is ‘Truth’.
Just look at the Marxists and the Nazis who believed their Truth to the extent that they even murdered for it — and even those heinous acts were considered righteous in their eyes since it was proof of their loyalty to their ‘Truth’.
Now, are you telling me that the million murders they committed was acceptable since they honestly believed in what they were doing and this Truth they subscribed to?
That doesn’t make it right
Of course not. You, Bill, and I agree.
Now, are you telling me that the million murders they committed was acceptable .
I’m certainly not, and I doubt Bill is either. I’m distinguishing actions from the person. Sin from sinner.
I’m quite willing to say that a heinous act is a heinous act. Murder in any form is heinous. Objectively so. However, I’m not in a position to say that the Murderer is in hell. Only God knows that.
It doesn’t make it okay, Bill, but it does mean we can’t make the judgment that someone is in hell based on their actions… even really horrible actions.
Sorry, that should have been addressed to Esau.
You mean Esau, Tim.
Our timestamps match to the second. Neat-o.
bill912 only said the he specifically giving John the benefit of the doubt. Not in anyway is he condoning John words or actions.
Taking all of bill912 comments into account I don’t think you can make the case that he did anything other than state: Love the sinner, hate the sin (as has already been pointed out).
Misunderstanding like this is what this thread is about.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Thank you, guys. (Although Tim had me a bit confused for a minute).
>Be careful of condemning John along with his words.
>Only God can judge the person.
I’m not condemning him merely warning him. God will hold him accoutable for every lie post. But naturally God will hold me accoutable for every lie I post as well. Same with you.
Anyway I get what your saying so I will try to be careful myself. Thanks bud. Cheers!:-)
PS for the record I got nothing against Bill912 comment.
In response to my question of dung placed on JPII’s forehead as a pagan sign of Hinduism , Inocencio posted:
“: Someone in the schismatic group the Society of St. Pius X told me that when the Pope was in India he had his forehead anointed by a Hindu ‘priestess of Shiva’ and that there is a photo to prove it. Is this true?”
A: There is a photo of the pope having his forehead anointed by an Indian woman, but, she was a Catholic, not a Hindu priestess! She was giving a traditional Indian form of greeting known as ‘Aarti,’ which has no more religious significance than a handshake in western culture or giving someone a wreath of flowers as a welcome in Hawaii.”
So there I looked up what “Aarti” was, and in clear defection from what was stated above, that Aarti was no more than a “handshake”, on a HINDU website, the definition is clearly:
“Definition of “arati”
http://www.krishna.com/main.php?id=531
“Arati (pronounced ar’ a tee) is an offering of respect, welcome, or worship to an exalted person. Since the most exalted person is the Supreme Lord, it is most appropriate to offer arati to Him.
Arati is one aspect of Deity worship. During arati, auspicious items are offered to the Deity.”
Therefore, he was receiving or being acknowledged as a diety or god (small G)!!
So either way you have it, Aarti or dung, he was participating in pagan worship in clear defiance of the very first commandment God gave Moses!!
And MT as reported in Catholic family News as well as in interviews with CNN stated that such worship was fine and that these pagans can be saved
Comment is futile. Just pray.
John,
I respectfully ask you to email Jimmy ( jimmyakintypepad@gmail.com ) since it is his documentation that you are questioning.
And since this is his blog you should want his understanding on the issue.
I look forward to reading Jimmy’s response please post it.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Tim J.,
Please take note of my Aug 28, 2007 3:01:38 PM Post.
I really tire of the relativistic notion “well, they honestly believe in that what they’re doing is correct or is, in fact, the Truth”; yet, that doesn’t make such acts right or even excuses them.
We should never excuse the Sin just because the Sinner honestly believes in what s/he’s doing is right. If that’s the case, we should all pray to St. Stalin and St. Adolf, who gave their very lives (not to mention, millions of others) for the sake of their beliefs!
Are the Catholics in India mostly Latin rite or a different one?
For the record, I have nothing against bill912 — I think he’s one cool dude.
But I do have something against the nature of the subject comment — as had been pointed out.
Esau, no one has even hinted at the things you mentioned in your last two posts. You assumed those things by reading-in things that were not in my and Tim’s posts.
+J.M.J+
>>>Are the Catholics in India mostly Latin rite or a different one?
I’m not sure of the exact numbers, but IIRC the three main groups of Catholics in India are Roman Rite, Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara.
In Jesu et Maria,
John,
The definition you posted says:
“Arati (pronounced ar’ a tee) is an offering of respect, welcome, or worship to an exalted person. Since the most exalted person is the Supreme Lord, it is most appropriate to offer arati to Him.”
You commented on this by saying:
“Therefore, he was receiving or being acknowledged as a diety or god (small G)!!”
This is faulty logic. The definition says that it is appropriate to offer arati to the deity. It does not say that arati is offered only to a diety (just the opposite, in fact). One might as well conclude that since it is appropriate to call God father, and Catholics call priests father, that therefore Catholics think priests are gods.
Blackadder,
I really enjoy reading your comments, unfortunately logic has nothing to do with John’s thinking and he has no time for the facts they just get in the way of his copying and pasting.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
The transparency of John’s sophistry is breathtaking. He’s like a walking embodiment of “any stick to beat a dog.” Even Steve Camp was able to more closely approximate something like even-handedness and reasonable standards, at least in some posts.
John, if you’re just going to repeat yourself & ignore the arguments that were put against you then you are not a person who is acting in good faith & you are unworthy to have a conversation with. This is just a clear sign that you lost this argument. Big time. We didn’t just refute your argument on every point, we destroyed it.
At this point, all your charges against the Holy Father should just be treated as blatant lies. You are a liar and calumnator of the Holy Father. You are not a faithful Catholic you are an anti-Catholic fundamentalist Protestant with rosary beads.
Esau, no one has even hinted at the things you mentioned in your last two posts. You assumed those things by reading-in things that were not in my and Tim’s posts.
bill912,
Apologies, but with all the relativistic notions that had frequented the blog lately (as well as here in physical realm), I just had to condemn what may have been inadvertently implied in your comments; that is, since John honestly believes his is the truth, that it’s okay.
I just wanted to condemn any hint of such a relativistic interpretation of your comment, even if it wasn’t the original intention of your comments to begin with.
That said, I know you’re one of the ‘good ones’, a faithful Catholic, so please don’t think I was attacking you.
A looooong time ago in this thread Chris asked:
“With this “news” about Mother Teresa come all the accusations of corruption. She took money from corrupt government officials, MADE dying people suffer more “for Jesus,” etc. Some of the stuff I’ve seen is pretty vile. Has anyone come across a good answer to this stuff, or are we supposed to just respond with lame things like “She did the best she could”?”
I have had this mentioned to me. When I hear that she accepted money from corrupt officials, I mention that Jesus spoke with and had meals with taxcollectors and fornicators BEFORE they repented. (Not to mention, the nuns didn’t exactly have a sharp team of investigative reporters in India to help them find the dirt on their donors…)
When I hear, “She made them suffer more! She didn’t use more advanced medical procedures!” She didn’t refuse help from doctors who knew more about treatment than she did. And God knows that it wasn’t (and isn’t) as if the dying were being taken care of by their families or their government. One man in particular I got very snide with, since he is very wealthy and lives well. I told him, “Put your money where your mouth is – build better hospice care in India!”
I also remember an Indian official making some comments about Mother Teresa when she one the Nobel Peace Prize. He said that she was retarding India’s economic and political power by bringing public attention to its problems. In other words, it wasn’t the PROBLEM that was horrible; it was that other people knew about it.
Jimmy, you seem to use “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” to show Jesus’ feeling of abandonment while on the cross. Are we supposed to believe that Jesus lost faith? That he felt far from God?
Is Jesus himself not God?
I always under stood “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” to refer to Psalm 22, which in the end is hopeful and perhaps most important a testament of faith under the worst conditions. Am I wrong?
Jim
That is an excellent post and I agree with you, the church of today (past 40 years) loves to use that line to explain any borderline heretical or doubt in their leaders instead of demanding them to be true to the faith through their entire life
Comparing Mother Teresa to God is heresy at its worse and I have seen this same comarison used over and over by clergy on Fox News and others to defend Mother Teresa and her 40 or 50 year loss of a faith!!!
Blackladder posted:
“John,
The definition you posted says:
“Arati (pronounced ar’ a tee) is an offering of respect, welcome, or worship to an exalted person. Since the most exalted person is the Supreme Lord, it is most appropriate to offer arati to Him.”
You commented on this by saying:
“Therefore, he was receiving or being acknowledged as a diety or god (small G)!!”
This is faulty logic. The definition says that it is appropriate to offer arati to the deity. It does not say that arati is offered only to a diety (just the opposite, in fact). One might as well conclude that since it is appropriate to call God father, and Catholics call priests father, that therefore Catholics think priests are gods. ”
Ok, I will try to offer you another source sent to me by a good friend of mine who is Indian and Hindu. This is so easy to refute, and the Pope whether he got marked with Shiva or Aarti participated in Hindu pagan worship!!!
http://www.saranam.com/guide/?n=Puja.DefinitionOfPuja
DefinitionOfPuja
There are several Hindu Rituals and Practices: The primary Hindu rituals can be defined: Aarti, Bhajan, Darshan, Mantra, Puja, Satsang, Stotra and Yagna
Aarti
Aarti, Arti, arathi, or Arati is a Hindu ritual in which light from wicks soaked in ghee (purified butter) or camphor is offered to one or more deities. It may be said to have descended from the Vedic concept of fire rituals, or homa. The word may also refer to the traditional Hindu devotional song that is sung in the ritual of the same name.
Aarti is generally performed twice or three times daily. For example, in the morning and in the evening, and at the end of a puja or bhajan session.
Aarti in Hindu temples
In mandirs (Hindu temples) aarti is performed daily by pujaris (priests). There is usually a ‘mangala-arati’ first thing in the morning, another later in the morning, one at lunchtime, and the final arati of the day at sundown.
The assembled devotees in the temple sing various types of kirtana and bhajans during the arati ceremony. The pujari performing arati first purifies his hands with sacred water from the acamana cup. He then sprinkles three spoonfuls of water over a conch, and blows it three times. He then lights an odd number of incense sticks (usually three) from a ghee lamp standing beside the altar. While ringing a small bell, he waves it seven times around the deities, and then he waves it once to the assembled devotees.
The pujari next lights a five-wick ghee lamp from the large lamp and offers it; four circles to the deities’ feet, two to their navel, three to their face, and then he waves it seven times around the deities’ whole bodies. He then gives it to another devotee, who presents the lamp to each devotee in the temple room. When offered the ghee lamp, devotees touch the flame with their hands, and then touch their hands to their foreheads.
The pujari then takes a smaller conch and fills it with water. He offers it by waving it three times around the deities’ heads and seven times around their bodies. He then pours the water into a shaker; which another devotee takes and walks around the temple room shaking it, ensuring that everyone has been touched by the water.
The next item offered is a cloth, offered seven times around the deities. After the cloth has been offered, the pujari takes a plate with flowers on it and offers it seven times around the deities’ bodies. The plate is then taken by another devotee and offered to the rest of the devotees, who each sniff the flowers.
After that, the pujari takes a camara (yak-tail whisk) from beside the altar and waves it before the deities, to keep the flies away from them. In warm weather, he will also wave a peacock fan before the deities.
Ben Yachov-the above applies to you as well, as it is YOU who got nailed as did Inocencio!!!
So what John? Decorating Trees was a pagan Germanic for of worship. By your non-Logic logic Christmas trees are Germanic & Celtic pagan worship.
Dude this is a classic FUNDAMENTALIST PROTESTANT argument. Not Catholic. You are not arguing from a Catholic perspective but from a Protestant one. Who knew you where so eccumenical.
Aarti is secular like a Christmas tree. Case closed. You lose Prot boy! You are a liar & nutter.
Wedding rings come from Roman Paganism. According too your BABYLON MYSTERY religion fundamentalist Protestant reasoning Catholic Priests who bless wedding rings are proforming pagan worship.
Try learning Catholic doctrine John & cancel your subscription to Chick comics. There is a good fellow.
Ben posted:
“Wedding rings come from Roman Paganism. According too your BABYLON MYSTERY religion fundamentalist Protestant reasoning Catholic Priests who bless wedding rings are proforming pagan worship.”
Ahh so now we go to the straw man and not standing by your and Inocencio “Aarti”??
Wedding rings are blessed by a priest and adminstered by them as a symbol, nothting more and has become part of church tradition for centuries
Who blessed this so called “oil” that was placed on JPII’s head? Was it a Hindu pujaris??? Is JPII a “diety”??? Is this now part of and allowed to be part of a Catholic Mass? Or was JPII participating in a Hindu service where he was being worshipped as a diety? Questions , Questions, Questions
>Ahh so now we go to the straw man and not standing by your and Inocencio “Aarti”??
I stand by it 100% as per usual your reading comprehention skills are non-existent as is your Catholic orthodoxy.
>Wedding rings are blessed by a priest and adminstered by them as a symbol, nothting more and has become part of church tradition for centuries.
I reply: They where STILL originally used by pagans & at one time the use by Chrsitians was new. Thus by your Protestant logic they are pagan since Catholicism CAN’T baptise other rituals & give them a Christian meaning like they have done with Christmas Trees & Wedding rings.
Your argument is Protestant to the core.
>Who blessed this so called “oil” that was placed on JPII’s head? Was it a Hindu pujaris??? Is JPII a “diety”???
The Oil doesn’t need to be blessed. This is Aatari not Confirmation or Anointing of the Sick.
If the Pope showed up in Hawaii he doesn’t HAVE to have his flower necklass blessed.
Aatari isn’t just given to gods. Hindus do it to their children who come back from a long journey I doubt Hindus worship their children.
>Is this now part of and allowed to be part of a Catholic Mass? Or was JPII participating in a Hindu service where he was being worshipped as a diety? Questions , Questions, Questions
Questions ONLY a Protestant heretic asks not an orthodox Catholic.
In order for it to be “Hindu” the Indian Catholic woman would have to intend to worship JP2 as a Hindu God (which no Catholic would do) OR formally invoke a Hindu Deity. Which she did not do.
Placing plant oil on someone’s head is not worship. Catholicism defines worship as something which is rooted in the act of the Will.
Read Thomas Aquinas & throw out your Jack Chick tracts. There is a good fellow.
John try & process. If an Atheist sets up a Christmas tree in his house then by your logic he is worshiping Jesus by doing so. He’s not.
Placing plant oil on someone’s head to welcome them & honor is not more pagan than use of a Christmas tree. It doesn’t matter what the Hindus do anymore than it matters what the Roman Pagans did or the Celts.
I know this is a waste of time. You are genetically incapible of ever admiting you are wrong even in the face of devestating evidence.
John,
Surprise us, be a man and admit you were wrong.
The Aarti, like a handshake, can have a secular or worship meaning.
The documentation is from Jimmy Akin again I challenge you to email and inform him that he is in error.
The woman was an Indian Catholic woman not a hindu priestess.
She was not making the mark of shiva.
She was not using dung.
I challenge you to admit you were wrong when you said otherwise. Come on John try acting like a man and admit you were wrong again.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Blessed Mother Teresa pray for us, especially those who detract from your holy work!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Our motivation, attitude for doing good works is just as important as the good works. These are excerpts from an on-line magazine addressing Mother Teresa. It is accurate:
But reading the TIME article on her [Mother Teresa’s] “crisis of faith” I think that “work-righteousness” is not the correct grid to place Mother Teresa’s life and legacy…Prior to reading some of MT’s private correspondence, I had thought of her as an intense example of the monkish good works type of Rman Catholicism. But, in light of these recent revelations, it seems clear to me that this is not really true. Mother Teresa’s writings do not speak of a woman who is seeking merit with God by her acts of service. Rather, she seems to present a classic instance of the mystical way, and her tortured darkness offers a dire warning of the perils of this approach to God….Some parallels between Mother Teresa and the famous mystic St. Teresa are striking… These parallels seem to confirm that MT was not a works-righteousness Roman Catholic but a highly motivated traveller on the mystical way…The result of this seems to be that MT thought of her salvation primarily in terms of mystical experience. Her mission to Calcutta was reportedly received in a most striking vision in which Jesus Himself charged her: “Come, Come, carry Me into the holes of the poor. Come be My LIght.” The rest of her life seems to have been spent in pursuit of a repitition of this ecstatic high. Most evangelicals probably read her complaints about Christ’s absence as merely reflecting some kind of spiritual depressioon. But it is clear from MT’s correspondence that what she was looking for was another ecstatic visionary experience. Her idea of salvation was to participate mystically in deity itself. To have such an experience was to have Christ. To fail to achieve this mystic height was to be without Christ… MT should not be venerated for the towering height of her spiritual achievement. What she accomplished should continue to be admired on its own merits. But as a spiritual example, she is to be sincerely and compassionately pitied. In saying this, I do not mean to declare her as damned; such a pronouncement is beyond my authority or competence. But reading the pieces of her correspondence, I found myself lamenting that someone so noble as MT should be led down such a false and tortuous path. It simply is not Christianity. Therefore, as a spiritual guide, her example should be shunned…In conclusion, I would suggest that MT’s testimony should turn us away from the path of subjective spiritual experiences and urge us back to the life of faith in God’s Word. Like her, we should long for the presence of Christ in our lives. But unlike the soon-to-be-sainted yet truly tragic MT, let us seek Christ where He is found. Paul explained: “Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down) or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Crhist up from the dead). But what does it say? The Word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart…Paul tells us to seek Christ in the Word of God. For as our faith rests on God’s Word and trusts in the promises of his gospel, we gain Christ and HIs light shines in our hearts…Will this be the lesson drawn from MT’s sacrificial and tragic life? Not as her papal apologists tell it. But understood through the lens of God’s Word, she offers a warning from which professing Christians of all stripes can benefit.
“The result of this seems to be that MT thought of her salvation primarily in terms of mystical experience.”
No. Mother Teresa thought of her salvation *totally* in terms of Christ.
“The rest of her life seems to have been spent in pursuit of a repetition of this ecstatic high.”
No. The rest of her life was spent in following Christ.
“Therefore, as a spiritual guide, her example should be shunned.”
She shared in the Cross of Christ. That’s what Christians are supposed to do.
Jean: Mother forgives you.
“Some parallels between Mother Teresa and the famous mystic St. Teresa are striking…”
Well, atleast she got something right, although I doubt she realizes that she complimented Mother Teresa.
Best book I’ve read in quite some time, maybe ever — and I willingly take my shots from John for saying that. If St. John of the Cross’ works had pictures, they would all be of Mother Teresa. His description of faith alone (yes, he does use that term) can be quite shocking…until you read Come Be My Light and see quite clearly what he was talking about.
Esquire,
This is a quote from the same on-line article that is right on: This leads to the main relfections I want to offer in light of MT’s new book. The first is that instead of offering a primer on the despair of works-righteousness, she really offers a primer on the perils of mystical, ecstatic Christianity. In this respect, MT should be considered not merely as a Roman Catholic but as a Charismatic. Why was her faith so dry and dead, as she lamented for over sixty years? One key answer seems to be that her faith was not rooted in the Word of God, but in experiential ecstacy. In this, parallels can be seen between Mother Teresa and Christians of many stripes — many of them evangelicals — whose faith is driven by spiritual experiences instead of by the truth of God’s Word. How much of the frantic, sterile restlessness of the evangelical culture today is charged by the same drive.
Bill912, “Some parallels between MT and the famous mystic St. Teresa…” My reply: I am intrigued by the fact that they share the same name. Did Mother Teresa take up this name as a nun with specific reference to St. Teresa of Avila? It seems quite possible. Secondly, the Vatican’s almost immediate motivation to canonize Mother Teresa is reminiscent of the earlier Teresa, who was made a saint only 30 years after her death. (Top mystics are almost automoatically looed upon as “Saints”). Also, there is the drivng theme of Christ’s love in both of their writings. St Teresa’s visions of rapturous divine love are almost erotic; Mother Teresa’s certainly seem to be at leasat highly romantic…But here is the remarkable thing about Mother Teresa. It is already clear that her private correspondence will have the exact opposite effect within Roman Catholicism. Her ceaseless spiritual darkness will almost certainly catapult her to the highest echelons of Romish celebrity. Mother Teresa will be the new St. Teresa, a heroine of mystic redemptive suffering. After all, the editor of her collection is one of her greatest admirers — the priest in charge of her application for saithood. Her spiritual despair is already being celebrated as one of the highest instances of true spirituality. Indeed, Mother Teresa is being accoladed for a singular achievement of mystical communion with God. And this is the ultimate goal of mystical spirituality: to achieve mystical participation in the Godhead.
To SDG: “Mother forgives you” My reply: Thank you for your kind words. Believe it or not, I say all these things with all due respect to Mother Teresa.
“A ‘Roman’ Catholic” as opposed to what? A Byzantine Catholic? A Ukrainian Catholic? A Greek Catholic? A Syrian Catholic? Why the use of the modifier “Roman”, when the Roman Catholic Church is only one of 23 Churches wich make up the Catholic Church?
“(Top mystics are almost automoatically looed upon as “Saints”).
Please define “top mystics”, and show evidence for how they are almost automatically looked upon.
Mother Teresa said that she took her religious name in honor of St. Therese of Lisieux.
“Romish celebrity.” I hope that you are unaware that the word “romish” is *always* a pejorative, as well as a violation of “DA RULZ”. (See the left-hand column above).
“Her spiritual despair is being celebrated…”
Mother Teresa no more despaired than Jesus did when He said: “My God, My God, why have You deserted Me?” She was sharing in His Cross.
“And this is the ultimate goal of mystical spirituality: to achieve mystical participation on the Godhead.”
If, by “mystical participation”, you mean “partaking of the Divine Life”, you are correct; *all* the saved will share in the Divine Life. But something tells me that you mean something else.
Bill912: Those are both very good questions that will require quite a bit of research. Especially the one about, automatically looed upon as saints” I have no idea what the word “looed” means. LOL. My typo.
To SDG, I would like to add to my response: I would have respected Mother Teresa enough to respect her wishes that all her papers be destroyed.
And how did you ascertain what is all the respect due to Mother Teresa? (Was it Carlin who did the definitive deconstruction on the phrase “with all due respect”?)
I’m sure Mother forgives them too.
MT should be considered not merely as a Roman Catholic
not merely Roman Catholic…. Good grief. As if Catholic and charismatic were mutually exclusive.
Her ceaseless spiritual darkness…
um, actually the darkness was lifted for the last five weeks of her life.
…will almost certainly catapult her to the highest echelons of Romish celebrity
Ack. There’s that “Romish” word again. Accurately described as pejorative and against the rules and almost certainly marks the writer as someone not especially familiar with Catholicism.
Hmmm, Catholic celebrities. There’s a new one. I thought Catholic celebrities referred to someone like Mel Gibson, Mike Piazza or for those of an earlier generation, Dolores Hope.
Jean, it’s good that you find Mother Teresa’s spiritual darkness interesting. I have to admit though, that your view of the dark night is somewhat unique from what St. John of the Cross describes.
Mr. Bill,
Comparing MT’s suffering and Jesus’ suffering is comparing apples to oranges. (I’m not sure who is the apple and who is the orange! Just kidding.)
When Jesus suffered on the cross he actually was separated from God. Jesus prayed, Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me. He prayed to the point of sweating blood. It was not because he knew he was about to beaten to the point of not being recognizable as human, but because he knew of his pending separation from God.
God said, I will never leave you nor forsake you. God never separated Himself from Mother Teresa. She just “Felt” God had separated Himself from her.
… but because he knew of his pending separation from God.
Clearly, you don’t believe in the Trinity or have the foggiest notion of it.
Hey Mary Kay,
On your comment that you’re glad I find MT’s darkness interesting, I guess you could say I find it interesting, but, more so, I find it heart-breaking. I have always had an immense amount of admiration for MT because of her total selflessness. If I could only strive to be a fraction of as selfless as she was. Then I realized her motivations for her extreme sacrafice. I learned from her life before I make any sacrafices to check the Word and make sure my motivations are in line with the Word and that I am not misled. I also check to make sure my motivations are purely unselfish.
Great make-up, BTW!
…and make sure my motivations are in line with the Word
How do you know your interpretation of the Word is the correct one?
For all you know, you may be just as right as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Hey Bill,
I appreciate your comments. One of the reasons for my participation in this blog is for the stimulating conversation. Can I ask what your motivations are? I would be curious as to why Jimmy Akin has this web site. Do you know?
Can I ask what your motivations are? I would be curious as to why Jimmy Akin has this web site. Do you know?
WTF?
The Bible says, Oh taste and see the the Lord he is good. I have tasted and I have seen.
Esau,
How do you know that your interpretation is the correct interpretation?
Because it’s one that have existed from the very beginning.
Jean,
Just read your comments.
One suggestion. Read the book instead of reading about the book. You couldn’t be wider off the mark.
Esau doesn’t have “his” interpretation. He listens to the interpretation of the Church Jesus founded, the Church to which He gave His Authority, to bind and loose in His Name.
Mother Teresa’s spirituality was incredibly deep. I’m swimming in much shallower spiritual waters, but I do realize my own lack of comprehension of deeper spirituality.
I’m swimming in much shallower spiritual waters, but I do realize my own lack of comprehension of deeper spirituality.
I’m in the same boat as bill912 —
Also, keep in mind that deeper spirituality does not solely revolve around feeling the constant warmth of Christ’s light and love shining through, as some folks would have people believe, disillusioned by ‘kumbaya’ nonsense (and, in the end, treating God not as God but as a consumer product to feel good about themselves); as the very Cross of Christ entails, it also involves a deeper sense of sacrifice as well as the darkness that often comes at the devoted follower of Christ.
This makes sense given the fact that the devil would more severely attack those who are not of this world but are of Christ since he hates those who are devoted to God (to him, to detract these from Our Lord would be a great prize), who he despises, as he considers himself supreme even over the Creator and, hence, pride being the cause of his downfall.
This topic may have jumped the shark, but I wanted to respond to Jean, not for debate, but for clarification.
I find it heart-breaking. … Then I realized her motivations for her extreme sacrafice. I learned from her life before I make any sacrafices to check the Word and make sure my motivations are in line with the Word and that I am not misled. I also check to make sure my motivations are purely unselfish.
According to this post, you
1. “realize her motivation for her extreme sacrifice” If you said what your new view of her motivation was, I missed it. But it’s clear that you think that
2. her motivation was not “in line with the Word” and that
3. therefore, Mother Teresa was “misled.”
4. Additionally, you make the claim that Mother Teresa’s motivation was somehow selfish. Oh, I remember now, in an earlier post, you thought it was so she could get a fix of what you consider to be a mystical experience.
None of your assumptions are accurate. They are inaccurate because you, like very many others, have a different meaning than the Church for the same words. From your earlier posts, you sound more like a “sola scriptura” Christian than a Catholic and that has colored your view.
It sounds to me like you are equating “mysticism” with “ecstasy.” There may be a large overlap, but they are not interchangeable.
Bill hits the mark more closely so I’ll repeat his post (emphasis mine):
“Mother Teresa’s spirituality was incredibly deep. I’m swimming in much shallower spiritual waters, but I do realize my own lack of comprehension of deeper spirituality.”
I’ll say the same to you as I do to some Catholics on other topics: that something is outside your personal experience does not make it false. Also, that something outside your personal experience is true does not negate in any way your own experience. God’s ways are far beyond our ways.
“At least ‘she’ got something right.”
How do you know I’m a “she”? I could be a French Creole male who likes Mary Kay makeup.
“sola Scriptura”
Since you believe that the Bible is not the sole authority, what authority do you give it? What exactly do you believe are the other authorities? I’m sure your answer will not be, the Bible is not the sole authority because it says it’s not the sole authority.
“The darkness that often comes at the devoted follower of Christ.”
“She was sharing in His Cross”
Obviously these blogs that I just quoted did not come from the authority of the Bible:
Galations 5:12 says that two of the fruits of the Spirit are joy and peace. The Bible doesn’t say that any of the fruits of the Spirit is darkness.
John 10:10 – I have come that they may have life and have it to the full.
Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Now I understand why Mother Teresa’s faith was not rooted in the Word of God, because she was not Sola Scriptura. So by what authority was it that “she was sharing in His Cross?”
Jean, :^) at your French Creole male. Reminds me of a different situation, different group who were puzzling over a “Jean-Marie” who they assumed was a she until I explained that Jean-Marie was a common name for French men (at least in some areas). But a male Jean interested in Mary Kay make-up would be unlikely to put forth your Scripture comments. :^)
But back on topic, the Bible/authority question usually arises for a very different question. To answer your question, Catholics believe that Scripture is the Word of God and that authority rests in Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, the latter two being rooted in Scripture.
When I said you seemed to be a sola Scriptura Christian, it was because it seemed more accurate than simply “non-Catholic.” Catholicism has the fullness of divine revelation. It’s the fullness, the aspects that are rooted in, but not necessarily spelled out in Scripture, that sola Scriptura Christians miss out on. It is because of the fullness, the Real Presence of the Eucharist and sacramental graces that give Cathoics the strength for a deeper sharing of the Cross. (not that they always do so. A lot of Catholics will have a lot of explaining to do why they squandered what was given them, but I digress.)
When you ask by what authority was it that “she was sharing in His Cross?”, the Word of God is part of it. Your Scripture verses are true, but what Mother Teresa was called to, and what the fullness gave her the strength to do, was to share in Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46 – “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” That’s Mother Teresa’s sharing in the Cross. Her darkness looked like being forsaken, but just as Jesus quoted psalm 22 which starts with “Why have you abandoned me?…I call by day but you do not answer, by night, but have no relief” and ends with “The generation to come will be told of the Lord, that they may proclaim to a people yet unbrn the deliverance you have brought.” So too the darkness is a means of bringing the Gospel to a world unwilling to hear it.
I hope that helps.
If I told you that my last name is really Baptiste and I like to look man pretty, would you then believe I’m a French Creole Male? HAHA
If this is the definition of sola Scriptura, then count me in: the belief that the entire Bible, all 66 books of the combined Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and are inerrant in the original writings. Through the providence of God, the Word of God has been protected and preserved, and is the only infallible and authoritative rule of faith and practice. 2Tim 3:16 – All scripture is God-breathed… 2Peter 1:20-21 -Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but man spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Is this the correct definition of your use of the word, Tradition? If it is, can you tell me where it is “rooted in Scripture” — unwritten teachings regarded as handed down from Jesus and the apostles.
Is this definition of Magisterium correct? Where is it “rooted in Scripture”? — The authority, office, and power to teach true doctrine by divine guidance, held by the Roman Catholic Church to have been given to itself alone by divine commission.
“…held by the Roman Catholic Church…”
The “Roman” Catholic Church? What about the other 22 Churches that make up the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church? But I believe we covered that above.
You say “Sharing in the cross” is rooted in Psalm 22. As far as Psalm 22:1, there is only one true, living sovereign, holy and eternally existent God. He exists in three co-equal persons – Father, Son, and Holy spirt – each being a distinct person and with a distinct function, but all of one essence and all possessing the same nature, perfection and attributes. When Jesus became sin, God had to turn his face from him. The Bible says God will never leave us or forsake us. So there is no way we could ever “Share in His Cross.”
Why do you make the leap from Psalm 21:1 all the way to Psalm 21:30 and then relate the two as, “So to the darkness is a means of bringing the Gospel to a world unwilling to hear it?”
“Future generations will be told about the LOrd” in context is, All the Rich of the earth will feast and worship, all who go down to the dust will kneel before him — those who cannot keep themselves alive. Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, for he has done it. Psalm 22:30 has nothing to do with darkness when left in context.
Jean, how well you articulate the Trinitarian theology formulated in the early centuries by Catholic saints.
You say “There is no way we could ever ‘Share in His Cross.'” But Jesus tells us, “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily, and follow me” (Luke 9:23), and St. Paul tells us that we are children of God and fellow heirs with Christ, “provided we suffer with him” (Rom 8:17).
Jean, how well you articulate the Trinitarian theology formulated in the early centuries by Catholic saints.
SDG,
What are you talking about?
Did you not read Jean’s previous comments?
She said:
When Jesus suffered on the cross he actually was separated from God. Jesus prayed, Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me. He prayed to the point of sweating blood. It was not because he knew he was about to beaten to the point of not being recognizable as human, but because he knew of his pending separation from God.
Clearly, Jean does NOT believe in the Trinity!
When Jesus became sin, God had to turn his face from him. The Bible says God will never leave us or forsake us. So there is no way we could ever “Share in His Cross.”
…and, clearly, Jean has not read the bible in its entirety, neglected some vital parts, failed to comprehend its very integral parts, or have chosen to ignore them altogether.
“When Jesus became sin, God had to turn his face from him.”
You want to give me a scripture reference for that?
Esau: You’re absolutely correct, I didn’t read far enough. I was praising the third sentence of Jean’s most recent post, which sounds distinctly Athanasian (except for the errant phrase “and with a distinct function,” for the Persons of the Holy Trinity differ by relationship only, not by function).
My point, of course, was that Jean is beholden to the very Catholic early Fathers for the language in which she expounds the Trinity. She is not paraphrasing the Bible, she’s paraphrasing Tertullian, Gregory, Augustine and so on.
I think it’s clear that Jean does believe in the Trinity, despite some notable errors.
I think it’s clear that Jean does believe in the Trinity, despite some notable errors.
But that’s just it —
Can you actually call what Jean believes in the ‘Trinity’ given all the apparant errors in her summation?
No offense, SDG, since I know how well-read you are in some of these matters; but saying that ‘Jean does believe in the Trinity despite some notable errors’ is like saying that Jehovah Witnesses are truly Christians despite some notable errors.
I think that’s way harsh, Esau. Read this bit again:
Even though I elided a comparatively esoteric error, that’s clearly Trinitarian theology. To compare Jean’s theology to the unambiguously sub-Christian theology of the JWs is very unfair to Jean, I think.
As regards the Father “turning away” from the Son, I think Jean has mistaken a poetic image for literal truth. Despite the literal impossibility of any such division occurring within the Godhead, it is very easy to make mistakes when discussing the unfathomable mysteries of the Trinity, and what Jean does affirm, in my view, still qualifies as true Trinitarianism.
SDG,
You select only a portion of her comments, which does not at all reflect her actual beliefs as you have only nitpicked a certain of her statements that support yours.
If taken in their totality, Jean’s beliefs is not at all Trinitarian.
Statements like:
“When Jesus became sin, God had to turn his face from him. The Bible says God will never leave us or forsake us. So there is no way we could ever ‘Share in His Cross.’ ”
and
“When Jesus suffered on the cross he actually was separated from God. Jesus prayed, Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me. He prayed to the point of sweating blood. It was not because he knew he was about to beaten to the point of not being recognizable as human, but because he knew of his pending separation from God.”
…fail to demonstrate any genuine understanding of the Trinity.
If to you her false doctrine already suffices as Trinitarian; then I shudder to think that you would actually compromise your Catholic beliefs merely for the sake of diplomacy.
As previously mentioned, Esau, I think Jean has mistaken a poetic image (the Father “turning away” from the Son) for literal truth. This is literally impossible, but it is easy to make mistakes when discussing the mysteries of the Trinity.
The comments you cite establish that Jean’s belief is somewhat erroneous, but this does not nullify what still seems to me to be a real Trinitarian faith. AFAICT, Jean seems to be substantially right about the essential teaching, even though she is wrong about some important particulars.
In an analogous way, I would say that Muslims (who are not Trinitarians) still worship the one true God: i.e., the creator of the Universe who made Himself known to Abraham and who revealed himself (though not as we Christians believe) in the work of Jesus Christ; the One who is omnipotent, holy, incomprehensible, merciful, just, and so on.
Muslim belief about God is clearly erroneous in many particulars, most especially in their denial of the Trinity. But I would not therefore say that they do not worship the the God, but a false God.
In an analogous was, Jean’s Trinitarian belief may be mistaken about important particulars, but I would not say that she does not profess the Trinity.
Esau, I can’t say I’m sure what you’re trying to say here, but it sounds like an ill-considered rush to judgment. I consider you a friend, but I can’t say I’m surprised.
SDG,
I apologize for the tone of my comments to you.
However, it’s just that it’s become so enervating.
I believe the source of many of the Church’s problems today is because we’re too often so willing to compromise all for the sake of harmony.
But the result in many cases is a compromise that, in the end, effectively damages the integrity of our Catholic beliefs.
Too many compromises in the US has led to the dire situation we find ourselves today.
Although, I agree with you that we must somehow find a certain appreciation for what remnant of truth there is in another’s beliefs; that does not, however, mean that we should altogether take their beliefs to be equivalent to those that we, in fact, hold.
We must respect what others believe but not to the point where we actually compromise our own beliefs.
Esau,
To your question “WTF?” on September 25, I find the way you expressed your bewilderment hilarious. The reason I asked Bill that question is because I have read through some of the blogs on this site and it totally bewilders me why any Christian would defend his/her faith by being condescending or demeaning. Jesus called a theif a theif and a hypocrite a hypocrite, but He was never demeaning. Why some Christians on this site defend their faith in such a way is totally bewildering to me for the reason I have stated and for other obvious reasons. But, on the humorous side, let me try: One of the fruits of the Spirit is kindness, dumb asses!
SDG,
I have to apologize to you for something back in September. When you told me, Mother forgives you, I thought you were talking about Mother Teresa. It didn’t occur to me until later that you were talking about Jesus’ birth mother. Being, as Mary Kay called me, a sola Scriptura (which, by the way, I’ve been called much worse) you can understand my confusion.
“If anyone wishes to come after me, He must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” Jesus, of course, was not telling us we have to drag around a big tree with us everywhere we go. The cross he was referring to there is us not doing what we want to do, but doing what is right according to scripture.
“Now if we are children, then we are heirs – heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory” The sufferings referred to there are the sufferings Christians endure from non-Christians because of our faith.
This is a quote from an on-line magazine article that is on point: But what of redemptive suffering? Are not believers crucified with Christ? Indeed we are. And believers do experience suffering as part and parcel of our redemption(see Phil. 1:29). But what a world of difference there is between Mother Teresa’s model of redemptive suffering — that is, the Roman Catholic model of redemptive suffering — one that would suffer not merely “with Christ” or “because of Christ,” but would suffer “as Christ” — with the spirituality described in the Bible. The apostle Paul, for instance, wrote much of fellowshiping in the suffering of Christ and of being “crucified with Christ.” But Paul never thought that he was participating the in the divine work of atonement. Instead, Paul could say that Christ lived in him and worked through him, not because of what he was doing for or with Christ, because of what Christ had done for him. Paul declared himself “crucified with Christ,” and yet rejoiced that “christ lives in me”. Why? Because, he said, “the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal.2:20). Not because of what Paul was doing for Christ or because of Paul was experiencing in mystical ecstacy, but because of what Christ had already done in love for him. Paul’s light-bathed spirituality rested on the finished work of Jesus on the cross. The light that shone in his heart — but did it shine in Mother Teresa’s? — was this great truth: He died for me. Therefore, Paul spoke of life, not death for himself (“the life I live!), since Christ had died already for him.
Is it possible for a sola Scriptura Christian to believe in the trinity when the word, “Trinity” does not appear anywhere in the Bible?
No apologies necessary. You didn’t misunderstand. Having been a sola scriptura Protestant myself once, I understand the communication issues well. Your first interpretation was the right one.
I learned better theology than this from my Protestant teachers, including A.W. Tozer. To take up your cross means much more than just not doing what you want. It means to die, to die to self and to sin. St. Paul doesn’t just say “suffer because of our faith.” He says we must share in Jesus’ sufferings. There is a mystery here you have not yet fully assayed.
Is this a rhetorical question, or are you saying you don’t accept the word “Trinity”? If the latter, Esau’s case against my positive valuation of your theology just went up by an order of magnitude.
WEB SITE; GODWHOISGOD.COM IS A GOSPEL TRACT IN 50 LANGUAGES FOR EVANGELISM TO MUSLIMS, HINDUS AND SIKHS FOR JESUS CHRIST. THANKYOU. JAMES AND HAMSA.