Theological Debate Ensued

I have been involved in a very inspiring theological debate with people who I would never have thought I would be debating -- extreme members of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX)! The very group that I am a member of. I would expect strong opposition from the Archdiocese of Baltimore or my own parish priest regarding my upcoming book, but I have not. After discussing it with my priest, he somewhat looked at me dumbfounded and said that it was over his head. Oh well... I like him very much, and I think he was playing coy with me just to avoid debate, but he did avoid it, and kudos for him. He's a good man, and I enjoy his homilies.

Members of the SSPX are pretty conservative folks, let me tell you, and I have a connection with them on some points, but, as I found out over the past few days, there are some points that I am more inclined to disagree with them on from a theological perspective. For example, the SSPX states that I am an apostate if I go to Mass at my parish and receive communion from my priest because it is believed that my priest is not worthy to administer the sacraments due to his vows under the Vatican II Conference. Hogwash! Christ will not judge me for participating in His Church and taking His sacrifice because of that, and I vehemently defend my priest and parish in that regard.

But, the SSPX are also "liberal," in my opinion, in that they reject the early Church. They only want to believe in the Church as it existed between the Council of Trent and the Vatican II Conference. When I made my argument that the Council of Trent made erroneous changes to Jerome's Vulgate, and when I stated that Pope Sixtus ruined the Vulgate, and that it had to be hastily corrected after being published and released -- oh boy, watch out -- I'm an apostate! According to one person, "the Council of Trent is the holiest of Councils. How dare you question its authority! I shall pray for you. You are a Protestant!"

After two days of debate against about ten people -- all students of the SSPX seminary in Minnesota -- I finally convinced them that I was correct from a historical and rhetorical perspective. Actually, one of their professors probably made them aware that my argument was sound, and there was no denying its validity.

I made the same points that I've been making in my posts. To begin with, Jerome's translation was considered inspired by the Holy Spirit for 1200 years by Church Theologians. I made the point that the early Church Fathers acknowledged Plato as having been inspired when he developed his point about Truth versus truth through copies. I made my point about language, how it evolves, how it has colloquialisms, and how an entire message can be changed by re-defining a few words.

In addition, I pointed them to the original writings of the Cardinals who opposed the changes to the scripture at the Council of Trent, as well as Saint (Cardinal) Bellarmine's writing about the errors of the changes. Then, I taught them about the early Church history and what being "Catholic" really means.

These young seminarians want to be leaders, but they want to follow the Church instead of Christ, and when I mentioned the fact that the Church is human, and the Pope is the successor of Peter instead of Christ, I believe I made a few of them angry. Some probably had to go to confession afterwards. But it is true, and that's what God wanted through the foundation laid by the Apostles, Paul, and the Early Church Fathers.

At first, they didn't want to believe that anything exists other than the Church, and that people have the right to read the Bible. Perhaps they still believe this, but I made it a point to explain to them that God never changes -- He doesn't need to -- and He states that He won't change. I stated to them that only man and society changes, and that changes to the Bible could not have been inspired by God because that would have been contradictory to God's message, and that, in and of itself, would make God fallible. I also pointed out that their very stance against Vatican II is the same stance I take with the Council of Trent. I received no responses from those last two points, by the way.

I believe the issue around the Holy Scriptures is the single-most important discussion in the Church today. The Bible is God's word to us, and faulty translations lead to faulty decisions. Changes are made, not because God wanted them, but because man wanted them. Yes, the Pope is the leader of the Church, but he is not He, if you get what I mean, and therein lies the core issue with these seminarians.

What this debate taught me is that I'm stuck in the middle. I'm not on either side. There are things that I like about both sides of the Church, and there are things that I dislike. Perhaps God put me in this position for a reason, so that I can speak to both sides. In fact, because my beliefs go back to that early Church, the Church between Christ and the Middle Ages, then I speak to all Christians because we all share that common Church. Again, I believe that all of the division and schisms developed because, first, the Bible was taken from the people in the Middle to Dark Ages, and the Popes took on the role of Christ; and, two, because the Bible has been changed too many times to fit the needs of whatever society, denomination, or priest (minister/preacher for Protestants) wanted to believe in. This is what has kept the Church weak.

On a final note, that is exactly what I left those Pope-centered seminarians with. I reminded them that the Church began to fail Christ when the Popes decided that they wanted power, and they became Christ on earth rather than successor of Peter, and that is exactly the same direction they are heading today if they continue with this line of reasoning. I understand why they have those beliefs. It is because they want to change the Vatican by putting in a strong Pope who can unite the Church. However, two wrongs don't make a right.