Fr. Groeschel says God is not Catholic, what say all of you?

Father Groeschel made disturbing comments recently when he blamed the young victims for the priests sex abuse scandals. But a while back Fr. Groeschel had said on EWTN that God is not Catholic. What is your opinion on that? Do you agree with him that God is not Catholic? If so, then why? Or do you believe God is Catholic? If so, then please explain why.

Here is the link of him saying God is not Catholic,,,

I say Father’s Groeschel’s comments must be taken in the context they are given, meaning that God, as God, is not the one true “Catholic” God (the God of Catholics only); as if He calls those only who are prepared to recognize and worship Him as the one true “Catholic” God.

He is the sovereign God and Lord of all nations and all men. To the extend that the Church’s divine mission necessitates that she calls all men to the one true Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation, it would make no sense to approach those outside the Church by insisting “God is Catholic, your God is not Catholic; therefore ...”, for God is simply – God. That He is worshiped in truth only as the Trinitarian God is not the same as saying that only Catholics offer true worship.

God Revealed Himself to the Jews not as a "Catholic" God, and not as a "Jewish" God, as if He were the "Jewish God of the gentiles", He was and is - the God of all men; of whom God commanded (while speaking to the Jews), "You shall have no other gods before me".

Btw, “Irondale, Ala., Sep 4, 2012 / 10:42 am (CNA).- Franciscan friar Father Benedict Groeschel has stepped down as host of EWTN’s Sunday Night Prime television show following his apology for making comments about the sexual abuse of minors.”

I believe that Jesus as the second Person in the Blessed Trinity died for our sins. Jesus founded the Catholic Church. " Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build ' MY '
Church. I believe that Jesus is Catholic. For me I would leave alone the question of God being Catholic and simply state that God the Father's, Son Jesus Christ founded the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which there is no Salvation and in His Son, God is well pleased.

JMJ,

George

MRyan wrote:I say Father’s Groeschel’s comments must be taken in the context they are given, meaning that God, as God, is not the one true “Catholic” God (the God of Catholics only); as if He calls those only who are prepared to recognize and worship Him as the one true “Catholic” God.

I don't see this as being really the context in which the comment was given. The context was the Catholic Church as the One True Church of Christ. In this context, saying that "God is not Catholic" is scandalous (yet par for the course).

MRyan wrote:He is the sovereign God and Lord of all nations and all men. To the extend that the Church’s divine mission necessitates that she calls all men to the one true Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation, it would make no sense to approach those outside the Church by insisting “God is Catholic, your God is not Catholic; therefore ...”, for God is simply – God.

But who is insisting on such a thing, anyway? It was Fr. Groeschel who brought the "God is not Catholic" clause into the discussion.

That is not the "scandalous" context I read into his statement.

This is what I believe Fr. Groeschel meant, and I have no problem giving him this benefit, rather than taking “scandal” and assuming heresy:

… while God is the fullest expression of what we can possibly hope for it to mean to “be Catholic”—as Catholics of any kind, Catholicism in the widest sense—we need not assimilate God into our tribe, our history, our home team.
God is Catholic but not a Catholic.

This may seem to be a petty and trivial use of language and waste of time—and in too many ways it is!—but I hope it serves to pull us ... out of our complacency as Catholics without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I also hope it shows that many people can be Catholic, the universe itself is Catholic, without being a Catholic. If it possible for God, it must be possible for man and creation.

The danger I will end with it this: we cannot allow the idea or the term ‘Catholic’ become the measure of things; God must always be the measure. And that measure is beyond the very concept of size, measurement, and, indeed, everything—even beyond the word ‘God’. (http://vox-nova.com/2011/06/20/is-god-catholic/)

In other words, when the caller asks the question as to why Pope Benedict XVI meets with the leaders of Christian and non-Christian religions when the Catholic Church is the “unique [exclusive] Church of Christ", Fr. Groeschel answers by saying it is because “the people have immortal souls [created by God], God is not Catholic, God is not Orthodox, God is God.” In other words, the Pope “need not assimilate God into our tribe, our history, our home team” when reaching out to other religions.

If you want to call this “scandalous”, go right ahead.

DeSelby wrote:

MRyan wrote:I say Father’s Groeschel’s comments must be taken in the context they are given, meaning that God, as God, is not the one true “Catholic” God (the God of Catholics only); as if He calls those only who are prepared to recognize and worship Him as the one true “Catholic” God.

I don't see this as being really the context in which the comment was given. The context was the Catholic Church as the One True Church of Christ. In this context, saying that "God is not Catholic" is scandalous (yet par for the course).

Let me address this from perhaps the more precise technical and theological perspective.

Tell us De Selby, when the earth passes away, where will one find the "Catholic Church"? Is the visible institution known as the one true Church of Christ eternal? Not according to St. Thomas Aquinas. In other words, there is no "Catholic Church" after the "eschaton", but only the holy city, "the bride, the wife of the Lamb", "the New Jerusalem" -- the Kindgom of God.

Again, the Pope “need not assimilate God into our tribe, our history, our home team” when reaching out to other religions, and that is the "context", I believe, Fr. Groeschel is speaking.

Of course, a rather complicated question that is answered in a short sound bite makes me wonder if his reply was edited for scandalous effect.

Either way, it seems to have worked.

MRyan wrote:I say Father’s Groeschel’s comments must be taken in the context they are given, meaning that God, as God, is not the one true “Catholic” God (the God of Catholics only); as if He calls those only who are prepared to recognize and worship Him as the one true “Catholic” God.

Ofcourse not MRyan. No, instead they are called to worship him as a "higher power" in new age spiritualism, or as the one true Muslim God, or the one true Buddhist God, or the one true Hindu God, or the one true Animist(Voodoo) God or whatever other pagan God you can come up with.

Apparently Groeschel rejected the infallible dogmatic teaching ,"outside the church there is no salvation". Apparently EWTN also rejects that teaching.

................................... God is Catholic ...................................

In fact, God is more Catholic than all of the members of the Church combined. Remember that God is the head of his Church(the body of christ), and the head is part of the body. Plus, is not Jesus the high priest within the Church? So how can Jesus be the high priest within the Catholic Church without being Catholic? Also, Jesus asked Saul(saint Paul), "why do you persecute me?". It was the Church that Saul(saint Paul) was persecuting. So Jesus equates himself with the Church itself,, not the Baptist church, not the Lutheran church, not the Mormon church, but only the Holy Catholic Church. So both MRyan and Fr. Groeschel are wrong. God is clearly Catholic, and if anyone tells you he is not, then they are not worshipping the one true Jesus Christ who founded "His" Church?

MRyan wrote:

DeSelby wrote:

MRyan wrote:I say Father’s Groeschel’s comments must be taken in the context they are given, meaning that God, as God, is not the one true “Catholic” God (the God of Catholics only); as if He calls those only who are prepared to recognize and worship Him as the one true “Catholic” God.

I don't see this as being really the context in which the comment was given. The context was the Catholic Church as the One True Church of Christ. In this context, saying that "God is not Catholic" is scandalous (yet par for the course).

Let me address this from perhaps the more precise technical and theological perspective.

Tell us De Selby, when the earth passes away, where will one find the "Catholic Church"? Is the visible institution known as the one true Church of Christ eternal?

This strikes me as an admixture of sophistry and trick questions. For a moment there, I felt like I was being cross-examined by a reanimated Clarence Darrow.

If I reformulated your questions positively, I would answer that the Church Militant (like purgatory, the Church Suffering) does have an end in the Church Triumphant, which is eternal.

MRyan wrote:Not according to St. Thomas Aquinas. In other words, there is no "Catholic Church" after the "eschaton", but only the holy city, "the bride, the wife of the Lamb", "the New Jerusalem" -- the Kindgom of God.

Yes, but the Catholic Church "was" the bride to be married. If we can extend the metaphor for a moment, perhaps a bit sloppily on my part, a man's wife doesn't suddenly become an entirely different person ontologically from who she was before, once she is married. ("Well ... usually ..." ba-dum-bum-ching).

MRyan wrote:Again, the Pope “need not assimilate God into our tribe, our history, our home team” when reaching out to other religions, and that is the "context", I believe, Fr. Groeschel is speaking.

Eh. Say what now? There's a Church Militant ("well ... at least it used to be ..." ba-dum-bum-thwak) which was founded by God and in which He reveals Himself to us. So, in a way, there is a "home team". If an obfuscating blogger (from the link you provided) wants to paint it as some kind of lowly "tribal" provincialism... what can you do? Who knows? Maybe he can get a show on EWTN, I hear they have a recent vacancy there.

MRyan wrote:Of course, a rather complicated question that is answered in a short sound bite makes me wonder if his reply was edited for scandalous effect.

Either way, it seems to have worked.

Yes, I will grant you that, and it does seem as though there may have have some editing in that clip — whether it was simply to cut to the chase or to make him look bad, I'm not sure. If there was editing, I am presently of the opinion that it was the former.

If it turns out that in fact Fr. Groeschel has been horribly edited to make it sound worse, I will duly make amends on my part for the portions of my replies that involve him.

But primarily my posts above are not mainly concerned with Fr. Groeschel specifically, but with the concepts generally; your words, and the words of the blog you quoted having shaped the debate more so than the original Fr. Groeschel clip, which I still feel is par for the course for him.

There's a point where the audio cuts out a little bit, which is what I'm referring to when I say that it does seem as though there may have been some (very sloppy) editing in that clip. But editing is not the only explanation for such a glitch, and I'm only extending the benefit of the doubt for Mike's sake.

Mike, one other thing to add for right now, from the blog you quoted:

God is Catholic. Otherwise, we have no reason whatsoever to imagine and practice and live in the Catholic family. But make no mistake: God is not a Catholic. Otherwise, we have no reason to imagine and practice and live in the Catholic family.

This doesn't really help Fr. Groeschel's case, as he simply said "God is not Catholic."

DeSelby wrote:Mike, one other thing to add for right now, from the blog you quoted:

God is Catholic. Otherwise, we have no reason whatsoever to imagine and practice and live in the Catholic family. But make no mistake: God is not a Catholic. Otherwise, we have no reason to imagine and practice and live in the Catholic family.

This doesn't really help Fr. Groeschel's case, as he simply said "God is not Catholic."

If you say so.

C-T posted this as a provocation virtually daring anyone to try and put this into a context other than the one which condemns Fr. Groeschel for saying that our Lord is not "Catholic".

Enjoy the spectacle and "scandal" and thanks for telling us what Fr. Groeschel actually meant.

There is no arguing with such infallible perspicacity.

The battle of good versus evil is with us until the day we are individually judged. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone....






JMJ,

George

MRyan wrote:

DeSelby wrote:Mike, one other thing to add for right now, from the blog you quoted:

God is Catholic. Otherwise, we have no reason whatsoever to imagine and practice and live in the Catholic family. But make no mistake: God is not a Catholic. Otherwise, we have no reason to imagine and practice and live in the Catholic family.

This doesn't really help Fr. Groeschel's case, as he simply said "God is not Catholic."

If you say so.

I knew I probably shouldn't have posted this throw-away addendum. It gave you something far too handy to latch onto, so you could easily brush it (and therefore everything else) aside.

[quote="MRyan"]C-T posted this as a provocation virtually daring anyone to try and put this into a context other than the one which condemns Fr. Groeschel for saying that our Lord is not "Catholic".

MRyan wrote:Enjoy the spectacle and "scandal" and thanks for telling us what Fr. Groeschel actually meant.

There is no arguing with such infallible perspicacity.

That last line, coming from you, is priceless.

In fact, I admitted above that "If it turns out that in fact Fr. Groeschel has been horribly edited to make it sound worse, I will duly make amends on my part for the portions of my replies that involve him."

But, you're absolutely right, there is no arguing with such infallible perspicacity.

George Brenner wrote: The battle of good versus evil is with us until the day we are individually judged. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone....

JMJ,

George

George, I'm not sure... do you mean that we should never, ever, critique someone's public words, when the situation calls for it?



BTW, in that clip Fr. Groeschel calls the book on Purgatory by Fr. Schouppe "an awful book" and "baloney." "Don't read it."

From one blurb on that book:

You would never dream so much is known about Purgatory. Not only is the basic teaching of the Church given here, but also countless true stories of apparitions and revelations on Purgatory from the lives of St. Margaret Mary, St. Gertrude, St. Bridget of Sweden, the Cure of Ars, St. Lidwina of Schiedam, etc.

He mentions (positively) St. Catherine of Genoa on Purgatory; ironically, if I'm not mistaken, St. Catherine of Genoa is also featured in the Fr. Schouppe book.

There was some good things in that clip though, too.

Hi DeSelby,


We have not posted to each other in awhile. I totally disagree with Fr. Groeschel on his view of Purgatory. I think the book 'Purgatory' is very realistic. My point was simply to post a longer video of Father, who had some very relevant things to say about the crisis in the Church. I do not see any need after fifty years of priesthood for anyone to push the 'flush' knob.

JMJ,

George

Douay Rheims : Exodud Ch 3 13-15

13Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is his name? what shall I say to them? 14 God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you. 15 And God said again to Moses: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me to you: This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

DeSelby wrote:

That last line, coming from you ["There is no arguing with such infallible perspicacity"], is priceless.

In fact, I admitted above that "If it turns out that in fact Fr. Groeschel has been horribly edited to make it sound worse, I will duly make amends on my part for the portions of my replies that involve him."

Sure, and what’s even more “priceless” is your statement “I'm only extending the benefit of the doubt for Mike's sake”, and not for the sake of the name of an aged priest who may have spoken carelessly, but not necessarily inaccurately (let alone heretically).

This cheap provocative thread has already received more attention than it deserves (I should have let it die a natural death).

DeSelby, you "latched on" to the limited "context" you wanted to give it while dismissing the context that says “Fr. Groeschel answers by saying it is because ‘the people have immortal souls [created by God], God is not Catholic, God is not Orthodox, God is God.’ In other words, the Pope ‘need not assimilate God into our tribe, our history, our home team’ when reaching out to other religions.”

God did not identify Himself as “Catholic” or “Jewish” when he revealed Himself to Abraham and to Moses; He is the God of the Jews and of the New Israel, the one true Church of Christ, just as He is the God of all men, even those who worship the God they know not, or worship Him falsely.

To add to George's point, He told Abraham, “I AM WHO AM”. It is not customary to appropriate the particular identity of "Catholic" to God; we give such labels to flesh and blood people with respect to the visible religious institutions they belong.

Our Lord was born a Jew and attended the Synagogue and is the Head of the Mystical Body, the visible institution which is the Catholic Church. This is why we associate “the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church” (which “was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself”) with Jesus Christ, and not with the Father, per se.

As Pope Pius XII also declared: “If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ -- which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church [12] -- we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.” (Mystici Corporis Christi)

Notice he did not say, “the Mystical Body of God”. Perhaps this will help drive home the point:

Attributes of the divine essence (power, wisdom, knowledge, etc.) are sometimes appropriated to the Persons of the Trinity. Thus it is customary to appropriate power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, and goodness to the Holy Ghost. Or we may say that the Father creates, the Son redeems, and the Holy Ghost sanctifies. Yet all that God does proceeds from the undivided will of the undivided Trinity. (http://www.catholictheology.info/summa-theologica/summa-part1.php?q=283)

We may also appropriate the attribute of “universal” (“catholic”) to God the Father, but “Catholic” is a particular name for the particular one true Church of Jesus Christ, and it is NOT customary to appropriate and project the name "Catholic" onto the name of God.

God is indeed “Catholic”, in the small “c” and (“its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense”) as it was used by Tertullian, for example, when he referred to "the catholic goodness of God", which we speak of now as “the absolute or universal goodness of God” (New Advent), and not as “the catholic goodness of our Catholic God.”

In summary, God is not "Catholic" in the familiar particular sense; He is the one eternal God, the universal (“catholic”) God of all men. The visible institution of the Catholic Church is not eternal, except in the sense that the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ is eternal.

This is another distinction we are allowed to obliterate in order to skewer a Catholic priest -- and get all high and mighty about it.

But, I’ll tell you what, DeSelby, if you can demonstrate where the Church or any theologian, saint or pope ever said “God is Catholic”, I’ll simply concede the argument. Seriously, if this was such a “scandalous” gaffe by Fr. Groeschel, you should be able to provide the evidence against him, no?

Unless I missed the obvious, the fact that you will have to dig deep for such evidence does not bode well for your argument.

Btw, C-T appears to have appropriated (copy and pasted) his original thoughts for why “God is Catholic” from “cathinfo.com” (posted by "Deliveringit”).

And, on that thread, with all of the righteous indignation, tearing of vestments (oh the scandal of it all!), the accusations of heresy and calling Fr. Groeschel “stupid”; after all the pompous self-righteousness ignorant blather, a voice of calm reason (must be “Catholic”), said:

The Catholic (Christian) Religion was founded by Jesus through The Descent of The Holy Ghost as The Means of Salvation. God is not actually, "Catholic" -- He is God. He doesn't have to be anything else. He is ALL.

Being a Catholic is something humans need for Salvation.

It is THE WAY. God does not need a Way: Jesus IS The Way, and He is God The Son, as we all know.

This only encouraged “Deliveringit” to foam at the mouth and continue with his ignorant rant (Jesus is God, therefore … blah, blah, blah), but the rest of the pompous pile-on crowd of “true Catholics” could only respond with things like “His statements, regardless, are mis-leading …”

Misleading? That’s right; see, the real “context” of Fr. Groeschel's brief (clipped?) response is derived from the fact that “he has made many such statements of universal salvation over the yrs”.

Ah, so that’s the true “context”, right, DeSelby?

DeSelby wrote:

The context was the Catholic Church as the One True Church of Christ. In this context, saying that "God is not Catholic" is scandalous (yet par for the course).

And even if this is was the context, why was it wrong for Fr. Groeschel to note the difference between the common attributes appropriated to God the Father as the universal God of all men (to include the Orthodox and the Jews), and those of God the Son, the Head the One True Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation?

Does God require salvation? Why is it necessary or even appropriate to appropriate the name “Catholic” to “I AM WHO AM”?

You have yet to lift a finger in explaining the nature of the scandal, so why am I doing all the work as you sit there and scoff and even accuse a Catholic blogger of “obfuscation” because you do not agree with him?

My arguments stand, now get off your behind and give us an argument and rebuttal you can stand behind. You just assume it is “scandalous” to suggest that “God is not Catholic”, now prove it. Prove it from Scripture, prove it from tradition or prove it from the “common opinion”.

But, if it turns out that yours is just one more private “opinion” based on nothing more than what is “implied” (and a logical fallacy at that), we’ll know what your “opinion” is truly worth; and, though I would recommend you for a position at EWTN (I understand there is a vacancy), I think they do have at least some standards.

"God is not a Catholic." -Fr. Groeschel
"Fr. Groeschel is not a Catholic." -God

My two cents: I could see both statements (God is, God isn't) being made in the right context. I could see the "God is Catholic" statement being made to a Protestant or a Jew humorously or tongue-in-cheek. Following up on Mike's observation, the idea of calling the immortal "I am" Catholic with a straight face and in seriousness is a bit offensive to me, much more so that the "God is not Catholic." I could see the latter being made in a serious way in a serious context of genuine theological discussion - again, the immortal "I am."

I listened to the clip. I think Father Groeschel used it in the serious and befitting manner I just stated.

Frankly, I can't believe anyone's offended by Father Groeschel's statement. That's rhetorical. Actually . . . it's par for the course(s).

MRyan wrote:Why is it necessary or even appropriate to appropriate the name “Catholic” to “I AM WHO AM”?

Why is it necessary to say "God is not Catholic" when the question concerns ecumenism? I don't see how it is. That's what I was trying to say all along.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your smoke screens, cheap insults and straw men arguments. It's pointless, just as much as the rest of the forum has become.

tornpage wrote:Frankly, I can't believe anyone's offended by Father Groeschel's statement. That's rhetorical. Actually . . . it's par for the course(s).

Thanks for input.

DeSelby wrote:

MRyan wrote:Why is it necessary or even appropriate to appropriate the name “Catholic” to “I AM WHO AM”?

Why is it necessary to say "God is not Catholic" when the question concerns ecumenism? I don't see how it is. That's what I was trying to say all along.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your smoke screens, cheap insults and straw men arguments. It's pointless, just as much as the rest of the forum has become.

Poor boy.

You missed the entire context of why Fr. Groeschel said "God is not Catholic", but you won't, or can't lift a finger to explain why the statement itself is false or gives scandal.

You said it was scandalous, and I asked you to demonstrate why. After you refused, and only continued with your empty rhetoric (I guess we're just supposed to take your word for such things), I suggested you get off your backside and defend your assertion of scandal, as it seemed everyone else was doing all the heavy lifting.

So now you're going to leave all in a huff ... this forum isn't good enough for you.

Take your cheap shots and go.

PS. Tornpage's remarks were spot on, thanks for appreciating his input.

DeSelby,

Its unfortunate that you have chosen to take your leave with such acrimony ... and I am not helping matters.

Though I seem to be helping you out the door, the dominate side of me always appreciated your input, even if we did not always see eye-to-eye (the nature of forums).

Anyway, I hate to see you go.

Please don't hold on to any ill feelings.

In the peace of Christ,

Mike

Catholic_Truth wrote:"God is not a Catholic." -Fr. Groeschel
"Fr. Groeschel is not a Catholic." -God

It must be a humbling, awesome and in some ways terrifying existential moment when one assumes to speak (and to condemn) for God.

I'm impressed, and I do not impress easily.

I will make a prayer of reparation for blasphemy, nonetheless.

Anyone here listen to Vin Lewis? He talks a bit about Father G.

Catholic=universal.
God is Catholic.
When I read this, I laughed with pain as people sometimes cry with joy.

Groeschel has always been too much of an old hippie for my taste. That he says things like this neither shocks me or drives me to despair, it’s just the fruit of having lived too long immersed in a culture of relativism and moral uncertainty.

Here’s some Vin Lewis I found. I’ll endeavor to find more:

It's not so much that he surprises me, but that so many Catholics see EWTN as an infallible institution, and everyone on there as a saint and doctor of the Church.
Personally, the fact that he has a background in that Godless science they call psychology has always made me uncomfortable listening to him.

People invest a lot of power in the television media. They must think that all of the technical expertise and equipment give it an aura of infallibility, plus, the multi variant perspective inherent in the television medium, creates a dizzying array of effect which unsettle the mind and give it the illusion of omniscience.

I'm glad that doesn't happen on the internet!

I’d say that I’ve learned a great deal about Catholicism over the years thanks to the internet.

Me, too. I've also used it for human respect reasons. It's far better than tv, but still a bit dangerous.