Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.
Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
Dear Catholic Exchange:
Much to be admired with Catholic activities..schools, hospitals and other helpful programs. One very large problem is the pomp and ceremony attached to Catholic rituals. Reading about the life of Jesus, the apostles, particularly Paul I see none of the self adulation that speaks from the robes, strange hats, smoke, and repetitious pagan like prayers. The wealth, pomposity and old covenant “priesthood” is simply contrary to anything in the New Testament.
Also, the percentage of gay priests has to be a contradiction to biblical principles. How can you not expect sexual problems? All these things do not honor God and certainly discredit biblical authority of the church.
Lynn Berntson
Rogue River, Oregon
Dear Lynn:
Thanks for throwing that sop before launching your attack. Very charitable.
Where to begin? First of all, the old covenant priesthood was instituted by God. So it was the priesthood, not a “priesthood” as you called it. Ever read the Old Testament? Does God institute something false? I'll leave you to work that out.
Second, robes, hats, smoke and other liturgical furniture were all instituted by God in the Old Testament and they all were perfectly familiar to the writers and readers of the New Testament. Just read Revelation. Heavenly worship is overwhelmingly liturgical and features all the things you just turned up your nose at. If anything, Catholic worship is much less incense-filled than anything in the early Church. Jesus, by the way, wore a priestly robe “seamless from top to bottom”. And, of course, the entire book of Hebrews is written to make clear that the priesthood of Christ fulfills, not repudiates, the Old Testament priesthood you condemn as “pompous”.
Repetitious prayer: Jesus condemns meaningless, not meaningful, repetition. That's why he prescribes a prayer for the Church to *repeat* t(the Our Father). He also prescribes rituals such as “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” and “Do this in remembrance of me”. Why? It could have something to do with the fact that liturgical, ritual worship is the primary way in which worship was ordered by his Father in the Old Testament.
It is typical of many modern American Protestants that they criticize Catholics for having gorgeous liturgies devoted to God, yet turn a blind eye to their own culture which routinely blows billions upon billions of dollars on a massively gluttonous appetite for junk. “Why was this not sold and given to the poor?” is a complaint made by a very famous biblical figure, though not necessarily a good role model. Instead of sweating over the fact that Catholics have a little gold-plated chalice with which they honor God (not engage in “self-adulation”), why not instead protest that huge numbers of Americans have big solid gold calves of money, sex, and power that they worship with body and soul? Chesterton summed up this hypocritical disconnect in modern culture nicely: “For instance, it was certainly odd that the modern world charged Christianity at once with bodily austerity and with artistic pomp. But then it was also odd, very odd, that the modern world itself combined extreme bodily luxury with an extreme absence of artistic pomp. The modern man thought Becket's robes too rich and his meals too poor. But then the modern man was really exceptional in history; no man before ever ate such elaborate dinners in such ugly clothes. The modern man found the church too simple exactly where modern life is too complex; he found the church too gorgeous exactly where modern life is too dingy. The man who disliked the plain fasts and feasts was mad on entrées. The man who disliked vestments wore a pair of preposterous trousers. And surely if there was any insanity involved in the matter at all it was in the trousers, not in the simply falling robe. If there was any insanity at all, it was in the extravagant entrées, not in the bread and wine.” (Orthodoxy).
Finally, actively homosexual priests are called “sinners”. They certainly do violate both biblical principles and the teaching of the Church. Does this mean that your church has ministers who don't sin? Or does it mean that your sinful ministers “certainly discredit the biblical authority of your church”? In Catholic thinking, it just means that priests are sinners, not that the doctrine they ignore is therefore false.
Please, try to have a *little* understanding of Catholic faith before you attack it as “contrary to the New Testament”.
Mark Shea
Senior Content Editor
Catholic Exchange
***
