Doors to the Sacred

How did the Archbishop find out that unorthodox material was being taught?

Read pg 173, what he says about Baptism.

One of my brother candidates reported her to the Archbishop. :thumbsup:

However, he didn’t go through the Director of Deacons which resulted in us getting a class on the proper chain of command.:bowdown:

I should like to quote from Fr. Groeschel’s book In the Presence of Our Lord: “One group must be identified and that is those who simply deny any enduring dogmatic structure of the Church. Frequently they call the enduring nature of dogma into question, and usually this is done in such a way that it is not explicitly heretical. This group is very influential, and their effect is seen in Catholic education and in the decisions of local diocesan officials. An example of this kind of thinking is the popular book Doors to the Sacred by Joseph Martos. Without every directly challenging the dogmas of the Church he calls them into question, and presents his view as part of the historical tide of the Church claiming as his allies theologians who would most certainly have rejected his conclusions–in this case the Benedictine monks who began the liturgical reform movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.”

Doors to the Sacred was one book required in my course “Introduction to Sacramental Theology.” I did not like the book at all and complained to the priest-professor that I found Martos’ writing to be sloppy.

God bless you. Please pray for me. I’m going to try and go to Mass every day for Advent.

Peace,

Gail

There are many wonderful Catholic books out there- enough to last a lifetime. Why waste time on this filth? Reading it would be like going into a banquet hall full of good food, and eating whatever you dig out of the trashcan. I wouldn’t waste any more time with the book- in fact, I would destroy it so nobody else will have to see it.

One of the blessings of living in a free society is the ability to freely voice our opinions. Let us not digress into advocating the censorship and distruction of anothers freedom of speech.

***“Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings.” ***
[RIGHT][/RIGHT]Heinrich Heine
[RIGHT][/RIGHT]Almansor: A Tragedy, 1823
[RIGHT][/RIGHT]Used as inscription on memorial at Dachau concentration camp

"We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."
John Stuart Mill
On Liberty, 1859

Lets discuss this book without recommendations to it’s destruction.

I must ask you if you would allow a child under your care to play in a busy street? Would you leave that choice to him or her knowing full well to do so was placing him or her in harms way? As Shepherds of God’s Children the Church must exercise judgment in allowing those who have been placed in her care. That judgment does not stop because individuals in history demand that all moral truths are merely opinions.

As a parent I know that I can not protect my child from exposure to all the evils of the world. It is my job to teach him the moral truths and how to live in the world according to God’s law.

To use your analogy, I am obligated to teach my child not to play in the street and the proper and safe way to cross a street full of busy and dangerous traffic. It is not my place to destroy the street and to ban the use of automobiles to protect my child.

Speak out against this book if you believe it is evil and flawed. But don’t advocate it’s destruction.

In my educational process I’ve had to read the Communist Manifesto, parts of Mein Kampf, and the teachings of Martin Luther, to mention just a few extremes.

As long as these are put into the proper context, it’s a necessary part of being an educated person to understand the motivation and reasoning behind ideas which we find abhorrent.

If we were to burn all the copies of Mein Kampf and prohibit them from being reprinted or even read, how would future generations understand the evils of the holocaust and have the ability to examine themselves so as to avoid committing the same crimes?

It is one thing to use a book as a teaching tool; it is quite another thing to teach what is in that book. Seminarians (preparing for priesthood or diaconate) should be mature enough to understand the difference before they are even admitted to the formation program; and professors should explain the difference between teaching something to be believed and using a false teaching for the sake of a complete education.

Have I advocated it’s destruction? I think not. I have only post once in this thread and it was to ask you a question and make a comment about your quotes.

You answered my question but you did so with some reservation. I might ask you if you would allow your child to play in the busy street before you have properly educated him or her concerning the proper and safe way to cross the street?

As Shepherds of God’s Children we have a duty to teach them not only our Faith as it has been handed down from the Fathers but to make sure that this Faith is not undermined by those who would sow doubt and confusion among the Faithful. You seem distrustful of this responsibility. You seem doubtful of it’s authenticity. I ask why?

You answered my question but you did so with some reservation. I might ask you if you would allow your child to play in the busy street before you have properly educated him or her concerning the proper and safe way to cross the street?

I thought I was pretty direct. You have to teach your child the right way to cross the street. This means starting out by holding his hand and guiding him across. Part of teaching him is explaining the dangers and the possible results of doing it the wrong way. Eventually I’m going to have taught him all that I know and let him start crossing the street on his own. Giving him the freedom to make his own decisions.

As Shepherds of God’s Children we have a duty to teach them not only our Faith as it has been handed down from the Fathers but to make sure that this Faith is not undermined by those who would sow doubt and confusion among the Faithful. You seem distrustful of this responsibility. You seem doubtful of it’s authenticity. I ask why?

Not sure how you arrived at these conclusions. I fully embrace the obligation to teach and proclaim the truth. My point is that expressed by FrDavid96. We shouldn’t advocate the destruction of a book just because we don’t agree with what the author has to say. If we don’t like it, then we have an obligation to speak against it.

So after you have taught him or her and you see them playing in the street and a car is coming you believe that you’re responsibilities are done? I honestly can’t believe that you are telling me that truth of what you would do here.

Not sure how you arrived at these conclusions. I fully embrace the obligation to teach and proclaim the truth. My point is that expressed by FrDavid96. We shouldn’t advocate the destruction of a book just because we don’t agree with what the author has to say. If we don’t like it, then we have an obligation to speak against it.

So you believe that a lie has a right to exist? I happen to believe that lies have no right to exist and we have a duty to protect the truth and insure that it be presented without any risk. When we start down the road of relativism we give up the truth for an ocean of opposing opinions. If our Faith is true we should seek to not only oppose lies but to reject them from the field of ideas. They should not be taught within our institutions nor used in our Parishes. Outside of the Church such is outside of our control but within the Church lies have no right to exist nor need we oblige them for the sake of some kind of idealistic worldly objectivity.

So after you have taught him or her and you see them playing in the street and a car is coming you believe that you’re responsibilities are done? I honestly can’t believe that you are telling me that truth of what you would do here.

Certainly I would warn him of danger. The issue is that there comes a point where you have to let your children exercise free will and judgment.

I have an eleven year old son. There came a time where he wanted to ride his bike to the park to play with his friends without Mom or Dad tagging along. I want him to grow up to be a self confident young man able to live in the world. So, I suppressed my fears and let him go. Placing trust in his good judgment and a prayer that God will look over and protect him.

So you believe that a lie has a right to exist? I happen to believe that lies have no right to exist and we have a duty to protect the truth and insure that it be presented without any risk. When we start down the road of relativism we give up the truth for an ocean of opposing opinions. If our Faith is true we should seek to not only oppose lies but to reject them from the field of ideas. They should not be taught within our institutions nor used in our Parishes. Outside of the Church such is outside of our control but within the Church lies have no right to exist nor need we oblige them for the sake of some kind of idealistic worldly objectivity.

Yes, the lie has a right to exist. God allows evil to exist in the world so that we can exercise our free will to follow his moral truths and passage to salvation. We can not eradicate evil because it is part of God’s divine plan that it will exist in the world.

It is also part of God’s plan that we are called to fight against evil as part of our Christian ministry on this earth. We are in violent agreement that we have an obligation to protect and profess the truth in our parishes, teaching institutions, and seminaries. However, in order to defend the faith you have to know the lies and distortions used to attack the faith. Hence, there is a place for such material in the educational process.

We will not learn virtue from the lips of devils friend. How is it that you think the knowledge of lies will bring one to truth? No, lies only brings a veal over one’s eyes. A fog to the mind. We are to dwell within the light of Christ and not entertain the words of evil-doers. You seem to think that we, as God’s Children should dwell in the darkness that we might find light. I can’t honestly agree with you.

There is a verse in the Scriptures that says that we should be wise in the ways of righteousness but ignorant of evil. I don’t think it is wisdom to dwell within the shadows of those who would undermine our Faith.

Agreed.

German has banned Mein Kampf; outside of Islamic dominated lands, holocaust denial appears strongest in Germany.

Sadly, however, having access to it doesn’t prevent following the same path, either… and the US, very slowly, is wandering down the path lain out in Mein Kampf…

And books like the topic fall clearly into that later category… or at least should.

The passages cited are sufficient for me to avoid it, and urge others to do so.

We don’t put Mein Kampf in the public elementary school libraries, and seldom even at the high school level; they are not approriate places. By the same token, Doors to the Sacred appears, based upon the quotes, to be heterodox, and therefor doesn’t belong in one’s elementary religious education.

Another example of this effect: Rev. Fr. Alexander Schmemman’s For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy is an excellent examination of the Byzantine Rite. There are two chapters, however, that make it problematic for Byzantine Catholics: one on marriage and one on sex. The difference in understanding between the Orthodox and Catholics renders the theology of the body in Orthodoxy clear; Catholic Theology of the Body is a subset and has therefor much narrower constructs. So, while the Ruthenian Seminary requires it as reading, and it is excellent, it doesn’t belong on the “Parish Reading List.”

Alright, I’m going to give this one more try.

We will not learn virtue from the lips of devils friend. How is it that you think the knowledge of lies will bring one to truth? No, lies only brings a veal over one’s eyes. A fog to the mind. We are to dwell within the light of Christ and not entertain the words of evil-doers. You seem to think that we, as God’s Children should dwell in the darkness that we might find light. I can’t honestly agree with you.

Let us take a look at evangelization. If I want to bring a Jehovah’s Witness to the faith I’m going to have to prove to them that their belief system is in error and that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth.

Any good tactician will tell you that the key to winning a battle is to know yourself, and to know your enemies as well as you know yourself.

I have to know something about what the Jehovah Witness religion teaches in order to be prepared to counter these beliefs with sound Catholic doctrine.

As Christians we do dwell in the darkness of the world. I would submit that it is our responsibility to shine the light of God’s grace into the darkest parts of the world. We can not spread the good news if we lock ourselves up in convents and monasteries where the only authorized books are the Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you want to change the world you have to live in the world.

Christ did not run from those who told lies or taught error. He had full knowledge of their evil and challenged them head on with the truth. We are called to do the same.

Final thought. As for Martos book I am now looking at it in a different light thanks to the discussions on this board. If others had not read it, they would not have been able to write knowledgably in a manner that has caused me to reflect more fully on the contents of the book.

Error has no rights. This is a basic axiom of philosophy and theology alike.

Only people have rights. Objects, animals, and even ideas do not have rights. People who have ideas have rights.

People also have free will. We have the free will to choose to sin, or choose not to sin. We have the free will to choose to speak the truth or choose to speak lies. Speaking a lie is an exercise of our free will, but it is not an exercise of our rights, because when we do this, we are acting against God, Who is the author of our rights, and Who did not give us those rights for the purpose of evil.

When we read or distribute errors, if we do so as a means of learning and teaching the truth, we are exercising our right to that truth. When we do so as a means of spreading that error, we are not exercising rights but instead our free will to sin.

Thanks Fr, David. You have articulated what I have been trying to in a far clearer way.

Hi ICXCNIKA,

would you mind pointing out the pages of the above quotes in the book? I have a copy and am trying to find them, but am having a hard time doing so.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.