What's the Deal with the Paulists?
Here's a Weekly Standard on John Kerry's home church, which is run by the Paulist Fathers. It's an interesting article, which I recommend to you. (For what it's worth, I think it says a lot about the difference between John Kerry and I that he attends this church while I attend this one.)
Here's the issue that jumped out at me from the Weekly Standard piece (which, I should note, I found via a link from Amy Welborn's blog): the author reports that Kerry's church, the Paulist Center, says a truncated version of the Nicene Creed during the celebration of Mass.
My assumption is that the people running the Paulist center have excised these sections from the Creed because they don't believe they're true, or at least because they don't believe that it's necessary to believe they're true to be a faithful Catholic. The thing is, unless I'm mistaken it in fact is necessary to believe those things to be Catholic. That's why they're in the Creed. I just can't imagine how you can be a Catholic and not believe in the sole lordship of Jesus Christ (or in his sole-begotten-Son-ship) or in the unity, catholicity and apostolicity of the Church. That's certainly not all you have to believe (the role of the See of Peter comes to mind), but I've got to believe that they're non-negotiable requirements.
So my question is: is this localized at this one church? Or is this the position of the Paulist Fathers as a whole? If it's the position of the Order, oughtn't something to be done? Not that Archbishop O'Malley (or, for that matter, the Pope) should start dishing out excommunications and anethemas like they're going out of style. But shouldn't someone take these guys aside and remind them, in a brotherly way, that these issues were sorted out 1,500 years ago?
Here's the issue that jumped out at me from the Weekly Standard piece (which, I should note, I found via a link from Amy Welborn's blog): the author reports that Kerry's church, the Paulist Center, says a truncated version of the Nicene Creed during the celebration of Mass.
During the Nicene Creed, for example, the sections on believing in only "one Lord" ("We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God . . .") and only "one holy Catholic and apostolic Church" are excised from the prayer.I've never been to the Paulist Center, so I don't know if they actually do this, but for the sake of argument let's stipulate that the report is accurate. Isn't this a big deal? At least as big a deal as filioque?
My assumption is that the people running the Paulist center have excised these sections from the Creed because they don't believe they're true, or at least because they don't believe that it's necessary to believe they're true to be a faithful Catholic. The thing is, unless I'm mistaken it in fact is necessary to believe those things to be Catholic. That's why they're in the Creed. I just can't imagine how you can be a Catholic and not believe in the sole lordship of Jesus Christ (or in his sole-begotten-Son-ship) or in the unity, catholicity and apostolicity of the Church. That's certainly not all you have to believe (the role of the See of Peter comes to mind), but I've got to believe that they're non-negotiable requirements.
So my question is: is this localized at this one church? Or is this the position of the Paulist Fathers as a whole? If it's the position of the Order, oughtn't something to be done? Not that Archbishop O'Malley (or, for that matter, the Pope) should start dishing out excommunications and anethemas like they're going out of style. But shouldn't someone take these guys aside and remind them, in a brotherly way, that these issues were sorted out 1,500 years ago?
<< Home