Mon 1st Sep 2014 | Last updated: Mon 1st Sep 2014 at 06:31am

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Catholic world mourns renowned biblical scholar Cardinal Martini

By on Friday, 31 August 2012

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini with Pope Benedict in 2005 (AP)

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini with Pope Benedict in 2005 (AP)

Italian Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a renowned biblical scholar and former Archbishop of Milan, died today aged 85 after a long battle with Parkinson’s disease.

Pope Benedict XVI met the cardinal privately during a visit to Milan in June and had been informed of his failing health, the Vatican press office said.

The cardinal was a prolific author whose books were bestsellers in Italy and included everything from scholarly biblical exegesis to poetry and prayer guides.

He retired as Archbishop of Milan in 2002, where he was known as a strong pastor and administrator, and as a very careful, thoughtful advocate of wider discussion and dialogue on some delicate and controversial Church positions.

At various times, he expressed openness to the possibility of allowing married Latin Rite priests under certain circumstances, ordaining women as deacons and allowing Communion for some divorced Catholics in subsequent marriages not approved by the Church.

During a special Synod of Bishops for Europe in 1999, he made waves when he proposed a new Church-wide council or assembly to unravel “doctrinal and disciplinary knots” such as the shortage of priests, the role of women, the role of laity and the discipline of marriage. His carefully worded remarks reflected his belief that the Church would benefit from a wider exercise of collegiality, or the shared responsibility of bishops for the governance of the Church. The idea of a new council was not taken up formally by the synod.

Following his retirement, his interests focused on biblical studies, Catholic-Jewish dialogue and praying for peace in the Middle East.

In a September 2004 message to a symposium on the Holy Land and interreligious dialogue, the cardinal wrote that Christians who visit Jerusalem should suspend judgment on the political situation there and simply pray for both sides. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict had become so complicated and painful that even an expert would have trouble sorting it out, he said.

In a November 2004 speech at Rome’s Gregorian University, he told Catholics they could not understand their faith unless they understood the Jewish faith practised by Jesus and his disciples.

“It is vital for the Church not only to understand the ancient covenant [between God and the Jewish people] which has endured for centuries in order to launch a fruitful dialogue, but also to deepen our own understanding of who we are as the Church,” he said.

Even in retirement, the cardinal kept up with issues of importance in the life of the Church. He was sought after for interviews and frequently published opinion pieces in Italian newspapers.

After Pope Benedict eased restrictions on the celebration of the pre-Vatican II liturgy in 2007, Cardinal Martini wrote a newspaper column explaining why, even though he loved the Latin language and could even preach in Latin, he would not celebrate the old Mass.

He said he admired Pope Benedict “benevolence” in allowing Catholics “to praise God with ancient and new forms” by permitting wider use of the 1962 form of the Mass, but his experience as a bishop had convinced him of the importance of a common liturgical prayer to express Catholics’ unity of belief.

The cardinal also said the reformed liturgy that came out of the Second Vatican Council marked “a real step forward” in nourishing Catholics “with the word of God, offered in a much more abundant way than before”, with a much larger selection of Scripture readings.

In a 2008 book-length interview called Nighttime Conversations in Jerusalem, Cardinal Martini said Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which taught that birth control was morally wrong, led many Catholics to distance themselves from the Church and from listening to and being challenged by the Catholic vision of human sexuality.

While not specifically addressing the morality of contraception, the cardinal said the Church needed to take a more pastoral approach to questions of sexuality. “The Church should always treat questions of sexuality and the family in such a way that a leading and decisive role is up to the responsibility of the person who loves,” he said.

Born in Orbassano, near Turin, on February 15 1927, Carlo Maria Martini entered the Society of Jesus in 1944, was ordained a priest on July 13 1952 and took his final vows as a Jesuit in 1962.

The cardinal, a biblical scholar, never held a parish post. With doctorates in theology and biblical studies, he was a seminary professor in Chieri, Italy, from 1958 to 1961, professor and later rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome from 1969 to 1978, and rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University from July 1978 until his December 1979 appointment to Milan.

After his retirement in 2002 he moved to Jerusalem and purchased a burial plot there but returned to Milan after his health worsened in 2008. He died in a Jesuit retirement home near Milan, surrounded by his Jesuit confreres and members of his family.

When he was named Archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Martini was the first Jesuit in 35 years to lead an Italian archdiocese. Pope John Paul II ordained him an archbishop on January 6 1980, in St Peter’s Basilica and named him a cardinal in 1983.

A well-known speaker and retreat master, he served as spiritual director of the US bishops’ spring meeting in Collegeville, Minnesota, in 1986. In that role, he conducted a day of recollection on the first day and presented a series of reflections during morning prayers throughout the meeting.

Cardinal Martini’s death leaves the College of Cardinals with 206 members, 118 of whom are under the age of 80 and therefore eligible to vote in a conclave to elect a new pope.

  • JabbaPapa

    Satire beyond you, Jabba?

    aaaaah fair enough.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    OK, let’s deal with it on your terms. 

    At the time Pope Paul VI said that to the Italian Commies, just a couple of thousand km away tens of thousands of innocents were being starved and worked to death in Eastern Europe and of course in Russia. Marchenko’s “My Testimony” is proof of his and Solzhenitsyn’s assertion that the conditions in the 1960′s GULAG were in some respects worse than during the 50′s and before. The perpetrators of that foulness were paying the Italian Communist Party money to subvert Italian unions, the economy and the State itself. 

    Now, given that the history of Marxism was more than well-known to Paul VI (= mass murder on a scale even Hitler never attained) and that Catholics had been one of the key targets of the Bolsheviks, how can you support such an idiotic statement, whether made by a Pope or by Madge down at the sweet shop?

    What I see in his statement is a concern with “making a better world” WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT A PRIME CONCERN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

    Its concern is with HOLINESS and with the SALVATION OF SOULS. 

    In spreading these throughout a society, inevitably a better world will result: people will be gentler with each other, more forgiving. But “making a better world” is an effect, NOT an objective per se.   

    That such a secondary effect has been transformed into a primary object is to radically divert the Church from Her primary function, as the book “Iota Unum” explains so brilliantly.

    No wonder that the post-Vatican II Church is Marxism’s chief victory in the world! No wonder that demonic Marxism was not allowed to be even debated at Vatican II, let alone condemned, as it of course should have been!

  • JabbaPapa

    I think you’re mistaken about him, and I’m very unhappy with your negative post mortem characterisations, and not just because they repulse one’s expectations for decorum.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    “Liberalism has never been condemned …” (by the Popes), says Jabba. 

    Well, Jabba, I am dumbstruck. Please refer yourself to:

    On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism – Pope Gregory XVI, August 15th 1832.
    On Government Authority - Leo XIII 1881
    On The Nature Of True Liberty - Leo XIII 1888

    And there are plenty more where that came from.

    Incredible!

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    “Trent took about 100 years to be fully accepted — and the immediate post-Conciliar years were agitated in a very similar manner to the current agitation in our Church”.

    Jabba, this is drivel pure and simple. There were NO doctrinal issues AT ALL in the wake of Trent that disturbed the Catholic world. 

    But that is exactly the problem with Vatican II. It is primarily a doctrinal crisis, only secondarily one of praxis.

    None of this pertained after Trent.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    I will Jabba :-)

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    I do see your point very clearly. You posit a caricature view that says pre-1962 – bad; post Vatican II – good. 

    You should read “Animal Farm” and you’ll learn there about double-thinking.

  • Apostolic

    But – by way of a contrary case – if I recall correctly you did doubt that decline in Westminster was due to Cardinals Hume and Murphy O’Connor! 

    The vibrancy in Milan is largely due to the New Movements which Cardinal Martini vehemently opposed. These are certainly not my liturgical cup of tea, but that was not Cardinal Martini’s objection; rather it was their doctrinal orthodoxy. As in Westminster, so in Milan: the New Movements are especially strong among new vocations and this despite the unrelenting efforts of Cardinal Martini and many of the English and Welsh bishops for that matter.

  • Apostolic

    Aelfrid the Mercian is often, admittedly, excessive in his reactions, but please steady on with the martyr complex, for you are surely a long way from being persecuted by him in any way comparable to that endured by the early Church. Feelings about Cardinal Martini are doubtless strong and divisive, but best to leave drama out of it, I think.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    :-))

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    After so many years of having to bear the betrayal of these “68-ers”, I am the first to admit that it’s more than difficult to avoid a sense of glee at their departure.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    Nice blog name. I prefer the 1956 or the 1962. And you?

  • JabbaPapa

    You are being quite educational !!! :-)

    On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism – Pope Gregory XVI, August 15th 1832

    … is a valuable pastoral document, and it does not condemn anything that I have discussed.

    Rather than condemning liberalism, it extols orthodoxy.

    On Government Authority - Leo XIII 1881

    Diuturnum condemns rebellion against Authority, as I would describe heterodox liberalism, and it has nothing to say about orthodox liberalism.

    ———

    On The Nature Of True Liberty - Leo XIII 1888

    Now THIS on the other hand is absolutely brilliant, and thank you for pointing it at me !!!

    It is the exact description of what I mean by the phrase “liberal orthodox”.

    Wow !!! What a wonderful encyclical !!!

    Here is the condemnation of heterodox liberalism — please note that liberalism per se is not condemned, but only certain abuses of it :

    17. There are, indeed, some adherents of
    liberalism who do not subscribe to these opinions, which we have seen to be
    fearful in their enormity, openly opposed to the truth, and the cause of most
    terrible evils. Indeed, very many amongst them, compelled by the force of
    truth, do not hesitate to admit that such liberty is vicious, nay, is simple
    license, whenever intemperate in its claims, to the neglect of truth and
    justice; and therefore they would have liberty ruled and directed by right
    reason, and consequently subject to the natural law and to
    the divine eternal law. But here they think they may stop, holding that man as
    a free being is bound by no law of God except such as He makes known to us
    through our natural reason. In this they are plainly inconsistent. For if – as
    they must admit, and no one can rightly deny – the will of the Divine Law-giver
    is to be obeyed, because every man is under the power of God, and tends toward
    Him as his end, it follows that no one can assign limits to His legislative
    authority without failing in the obedience which is due. Indeed, if the human
    mind be so presumptuous as to define the nature and extent of God’s rights and
    its own duties, reverence for the divine law will be apparent rather than
    real, and arbitrary judgment will prevail over the authority and providence of
    God.


    18. There are others, somewhat more moderate
    though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to
    be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in
    public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely
    disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need
    of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position
    is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing
    means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly,
    that is to say, according to the laws of God.


    19. To make this more evident, the growth of
    liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details.
    And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to
    the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This
    is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose
    any religion or none.

    The rest of the Encyclical just defines what it means to be both liberal and orthodox.

    25. Wherefore, this liberty, also, in order that
    it may deserve the name
    , must be kept within
    certain limits, lest the office of teaching be turned with impunity into an
    instrument of corruption. Now, truth, which should be the only subject matter
    of those who teach, is of two kinds: natural and supernatural. Of natural
    truths, such as the principles of nature and whatever is derived from them
    immediately by our reason, there is a kind of common patrimony in the human
    race. On this, as on a firm basis, morality, justice, religion, and the very
    bonds of human society rest: and to allow people to go unharmed who violate or
    destroy it would be most impious, most foolish, and most inhuman.


    37. For, to reject the supreme authority to
    God, and to cast off all obedience to Him in public matters, or even in
    private and domestic affairs, is the greatest perversion of liberty and the
    worst kind of liberalism; and what We have said must be understood to apply to
    this alone in its fullest sense.
    …Really, you’ve just proved my point.

  • JabbaPapa

    ?????????????????????????

    OK, let’s deal with it on your terms.

    What on EARTH makes you imagine that Marxism is “on my own terms” ??????

    Try and stop listening to your own propaganda !!!

  • JabbaPapa

    Jabba, this is drivel pure and simple. There were NO doctrinal issues AT ALL in the wake of Trent that disturbed the Catholic world.

    You’re wrong.

    No doctrinal issues *remain* — but Trent condemned various heresies, and it did take about a century for those attracted to those heresies to accept the Council.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    As you rightly said, “Not *every* Catholic statement concerns Eternal Salvation in an explicit manner”.

    So, “OK, let’s deal with it on your terms” here simply means in a secular fashion if you will. 

    My point wasn’t at all to have a go at you; simply that even on the score of “making a better world”, the LAST people PP VI should have been talking to were the Communists.

  • Winjanefish

    A sentiment and prayer appropriate to a remarkable, gifted Churchman with a truly Evangelical vision and an holy vocation.  

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    Your “orthodox liberalism” hardly exists anymore. It’s irrelevant really to the discussion. 

  • JabbaPapa

    Your “orthodox liberalism” hardly exists anymore

    I know — and it’s a total disaster that it doesn’t.

  • Timozweb

    As I see it we talk of modernists and liberals but fundamentally it
    comes down to this. There a limited number within the Catholic Church (Group 1)
    who say, Christ offers you this hope of Heaven. If you live your life in
    this way then Christ offers the promise of this outcome. To assist us God sent us his only
    Son who we offer in the Mass that takes this particular form. We believe that
    this form both makes the offering to God in an appropriate manner and together
    with our teaching, it is most likely to result in Catholics living their life
    in the required way. This does not change. It is our stall – come and share it with us. Whilst we will
    do our utmost to encourage others to join Christ’s Church and share in this
    offer, if people turn their back on it then so be it, we move on to the next
    person. If the Church ends up being 500 people, so be it.

     

    There are others (Group 2) who say, yes, that’s all very well, but pews
    are emptying. We are failing the people. We need to have a Church that fits the 21st century. Lets
    change the product so that it appeals to a wider audience. After all, the more
    people we get in, the more who will share in the offer of Heaven. The Church
    therefore, must bend a little to reflect current society and speak the language
    of the people at the local level. We need to update the Mass. We are getting a bad press about women priests and it is putting people off, so that can’t be
    right. We also have to accept limited abortion (obviously only for rape cases
    or severe birth defects). Contraception is really a must to stop poor people
    suffering, and isn’t it terrible that really sick people can’t get help in
    ending their lives etc. After all, if we don’t do this we are acting like the
    Pharisee, refusing to help people who are in pain and misery. As the Beatles
    said, love is all you need and love is what people see in it.

     

    There are of course shades of view between 1 and 2. I have not read
    much of what Cardinal Martini said but I get the impression he was more in
    Group 2 than 1. If so, I don’t agree with his views.

     

  • fair player

    Cardinal Martini  has  gone to the Lord…..RIP.
    Apparently the Catholic world is mourning sic headline Catholic Herald….are you joking?
    From the comments here it appears virtually all Catholics are dancing on his grave.
    Why are these comments so angry insensitive and hostile?

  • Alban

    I listened early yesterday evening (3rd September) to the news magazine programme on BBC Radio4 when there was an excerpt from one of Cardinal Martini’s writings. He sounded a wonderful man who believed in the essential tenets of Christianity – of love, of compassion, of forgiveness and total absolution with no buts. He would have made a wonderful Pope. 

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    Because most Catholics, including those who would normally stay silent, have had it with the utterly useless and even false shepherds who have done their level best to destroy the Church. 

    The internet is our new tool of protest against these wolves and for our demands for a return to the real wellsprings of Catholic doctrine, worship and life. 

  • Alan

    Not sure what”New Movements” you refer to.  My daughter said it was a system of “cell groups” in parishes which was proving very successful.

  • rjt1

    Many of them appear to come from those who sympathise with the SSPX. You will see a lot of hostility from this quarter.

    At the same time, the positions attibuted to the Cardinal suggest liberal leanings which are not exactly welcome to those of us who are not of the SSPX but want full-blooded Catholicism.

  • gjml

     I see interesting and thoughtful comments here (I wish that Dorotheus would come back) interspersed with rantings from those who seem to see themselves as some kind of Church stormtroopers! The message from them seems to be: I am right  - no, REALLY right (where else in the religious world have I heard that one?) and you will follow the Holy message of compassion and love MY way, or I will persecute you in any way that I can. Is it that there’s no such thing as ‘fellow Christians’ – nor even ‘fellow Catholics’; just ‘fellow conservative Catholics’? Rejoicing the death of a good man really seems tacky and unnecessary to me as it does to others.
     Catholic church – with vociferous friends like some of these on this blog, you don’t need enemies.

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    ROFL

  • gjml

    I got an e-mail to tell me I had a reply to my comment…Is that a reply?

  • O’hEarain

    1 Corinthians
    3:1-9Brothers, I myself was unable to speak to you as people
    of the Spirit: I treated you as sensual men, still infants in Christ. What I fed
    you with was milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it; and indeed,
    you are still not ready for it since you are still unspiritual.

    Isn’t that
    obvious from all the jealousy and wrangling that there is among you, from the
    way that you go on behaving like ordinary people? What could be more unspiritual
    than your slogans, ‘I am for Paul’ and ‘I am for Apollos’?

    After all, what is Apollos and what is Paul? They
    are servants who brought the faith to you.

    Even the different ways in which they
    brought it were assigned to them by the Lord. I did the planting, Apollos did
    the watering, but God made things grow.

    Neither the planter nor the waterer
    matters: only God, who makes things grow.

    It is all one who does the planting
    and who does the watering, and each will duly be paid according to his share in
    the work. We are fellow workers with God; you are God’s farm, God’s
    building.

  • O’hEarain

    At the very least, we
    will understand that Vatican II was about the passing of power to the people of
    God, who learned from that Council how to wake up and grow up as Christians,
    with an ongoing mandate from the God who took flesh and dwelt among us to bring
    light and salience to a world that was already redeemed and didn’t know it.

     

    In the autumn of
    1962, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council journeyed to Rome
    from almost every nation on earth, a mixture of more than 2,500 bishops,
    archbishops, abbots and Eastern patriarchs, comprising a parliamentary body
    that would meet faithfully and argue freely every fall for the next four years.
    They heard some of the Church’s most senior cardinals speaking about the Church’s
    need for selfless service, not their own prerogatives. They heard a learned
    cardinal from Bologna telling them the Church didn’t have all the answers, that
    it was on a wandering, sweaty pilgrim-march through history. They heard another
    learned cardinal from the Roman Curia telling them that their scholars and
    preachers had to get back to the Church’s Scriptural and historic roots. They
    heard an enlightened archbishop from Belgium telling them about the dangers of
    clericalism, and a humble archbishop from Brazil asking them to sell their
    diamond-and-ruby-encrusted chalices and give them to the poor. They heard a
    bishop from Marseilles telling them that Catholic France had lost the working
    class, and a Dutch missionary bishop from Indonesia reporting that the age of
    colonialism was over, even and especially for the Church, and a bishop from
    Bora Bora telling them that his people understood parables, but didn’t
    understand (or much care about) papal infallibility.

     

    Archbishop T.D.
    Roberts of Bombay told me, “They were saying things I’d always thought, but
    never dared utter.” That gave him, and most of his confreres, the leave to
    speak out as they never had before, without fear, which never should have had a
    place in the Church in the first place. Fear didn’t of course mark the early
    Church when it was born—at the first Pentecost. Only later, when the Church
    started becoming more of an empire than a family did the sycophantic Church
    emerge.

     

    And as for the pope,
    Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, John XXIII, well, they saw a jolly fellow who did not
    much believe in condemning the world, or crying havoc over it, but, rather, in
    loving it and trying to make it a better place for his nieces and nephews. He
    didn’t want to keep the barque of Peter in dry dock much longer. “Scrape the
    barnacles of history off the bottom of this ship,” he said, “and let’s set sail
    and get the saving message of salvation out on to the seas of the world.”

     

    There was an ancient
    canon in the Church that said, “What concerns all should be discussed and
    approved by all.”

     

  • O’hEarain

    like FASCISTs you mean

  • O’hEarain

    I suspect that you will have a very small audience

  • O’hEarain

    the official teachings of the church … as in Vatican II

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    “Interesting and thoughtful” – Dorotheus? A ranting Bolshevik?

  • Ælfrid the Mercian

    On the contrary: Traditionalists dominate the Catholic airwaves and the number of Traditionalist participants on blogs like this is growing all the time.

    Traditionalists are the salt of the earth and the future of the Church. 

    Because we are Catholics, not pseudo-protestants or the increasing number of N.O. “Catholics” who are straight-forward pagans.

  • Mr Grumpy

    But would you accept that the Pope is a genuine orthodox liberal, JP?

  • Mr Grumpy

    “No more good guys against the bad guys” in an article which deploys a thousand adjectives to make sure we don’t miss the point: reformers good (optimistic, open. joyous, enthusiastic…), conservatives bad (censorious, fearful, gloomy…). Sorry, JabbaPapa, but this is beyond parody.

  • gjml

    Haha! Hardly! I see no ‘ranting’ from Dorotheus…you’re the expert at that!

  • Sweetjae

    You are just a protestant in disquise, they have same Bible yet arrived at differing and opposing beliefs and you and your traditionalist kind (Sedevacanrists, Conclavists, old catholics, sspx etc) are the same, with the same preVII Tradition yet arrived at differing beliefs, both are quilty of Private Judgment!

    Will you please settle your differences first before you preach to us about true Tradition!

  • Sweetjae

    Alfride the protestant! Deal with other traditionalists first who dont agree with you on the same tradition….right?

  • Sweetjae

    Then elect yourself as the pope of yoir own church or just vote for whomever you people wish, the likes of Fellay or Williamson, we have our Pope BenedictXVI, get your own, anyways you only listen only to yourselves, self-rightuous loons.

  • Sweetjae

    The kind of priests who propagate dissent, rebellion, disobedience and arrogance….your kind!

  • Sweetjae

    Your kind are the real wolves pretending to be the ‘true Church’…like the Jehovahs who claimed they also hold the ‘true church’.

  • Sweetjae

    We are the Traditional Catholics NOT YOU and your pseudo doctrines of, a catholic can refuse obedience to a valid Council and the your group, the arrogant and proud SSPX is the sole interpreter of tradition. Get a grip.

  • Sweetjae

    Another protestant misinterpretation.

  • Sweetjae

    Everybody will clearly see the arrogance, pride and recalcitrant behaviour of these people like Alfride and SSPX here…by their friuts you will know them, a group who constantly splintering, a sign of a dark force!

  • Sweetjae

    Another self rightous fool, why dont you agree first with other so called traditionalist before we can even listen to your foolist interpretation?

  • Sweetjae

    Because we the true Catholics are being attacked from both sides, the modernists Left and traditionalists Right, like this Alfride the self proclaim magisterium. Both are arrogant.

  • Fr. Thomas Poovathinkal

    ABOUT Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini :

    “In a November 2004 speech at Rome’s Gregorian University, he told
    Catholics they could not understand their faith unless they understood
    the Jewish faith practised by Jesus and his disciples.”

    OBEYING JESUS THE LORD THROUGH HIS HOLY SPIRIT IS THE ONLY KEY.

    TOO MUCH OF UNDERSTANDING IS NOT NEEDED. JESUS THE LORD SUPPLIES EVERYTHING THOROUGH HIS HOLY SPIRIT TO THOSE WHO SEEK TO OBEY HIM.

    MERE INTELLECTUAL ENTRY INTO FAITH IS JUST IDIOTIC IF IT IS NOT IMMEDIATELY DEVELOPED INTO SPIRITUAL FAITH WHICH WILL LEAD ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD-WILL INTO APOSTLESHIP.

    THE REASON WHY EVERY CHRISTIAN IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH WAS AN APOSTLE WAS DUE TO THEIR SPIRITUAL FAITH OF THIS QUALITY.

    MERE INTELLECTUALS AND SCHOLARS ARE THE REAL PROBLEM. REMEMBER WHAT THE LORD HAS TOLD US ALREADY ABOUT THE “LEARNED AND THE CLEVER”.

    ON THE WHOLE MERE INTELLECTUALS AND SCHOLARS ARE LIKE THE PHARISEE-SCRIBE AND THE REST OF THE COMBINE WHO NEVER ENTERED THE KINGDOM OF GOD BECAUSE OF THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT THE BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE FROM THE ST.JOHN THE BAPTIST. THIS BAPTISM WAS INTIMATELY RELATED TO THE BAPTISM JESUS PROVIDED THROUGH HIS APOSTLES.

    AS LONG AS WE ARE UNDER  MERE SCHOLARS AND INTELLECTUALS AS AGAINST TRUE APOSTLES AS OUR LEADERS THE CHURCH IS BOUND TO BE “LIKE RUST FALLING AWAY”.

    WHATEVER NOISE THESE TYPES OF PEOPLE (OUR ‘NETAS’) MAKE AND WHATEVER PROVISIONS THEY MAKE TO KEEP THE PEOPLE OCCUPIED ARE LIKE THE ILLUTION  CREATED BY THOSE WHO WENT ON REPEATING “THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD, THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD” AS THE PROPHET SAID. THIS IS ONLY TIME-PASS FOR THE THESE TYPE OF LEADERS AND INTELLECTUALS.

  • Fr. Thomas Poovathinkal

    DENOMINATIONAL CHRISTIANITY IS THE CREATION OF THE GOD OF THIS WORLD WHO DIVIDES AND RULES.