Guy's Books and Thoughts

This book is sort of like a Roman Catholic version of C. S. Lewis�
MERE CHRISTIANITY. What the author means by the title, THEOLOGY AND
SANITY, is that the worldview from the Christian perspective is the
sane view. A rejection of this worldview is insanity, i.e. not living
with reality. I find this assertion similar to a statement made by
Lutheran theologian Franz Pieper in volume one of his book CHRISTIAN
DOGMATICS. I am not Roman Catholic. I am Lutheran. But I still found
the book to be most interesting. His arguments for theism and the
trinity sounded possible, probable and persuasive. I found his
writing on the redemptive work of Christ to be moving. So, yes I did
find points of agreement between myself and the author. And like
Lutherans, Sheed writes that Christ died for the sins of the world.
So on this point Lutherans are actually closer to the Roman Catholics,
than the Protestant Calvinist�s who say Christ died only for the sins
of the elect, not the world.

I would also express agreement with Mr. Sheed, that one should
exercise one�s intellect.. I like the way he makes the point: a
knowledgeable man may be bad person in his character, committing all
sorts of evils and an ignorant man may be good person in his
character showing much virtue; but that does not make ignorance a
virtue. Well said !
Too many Christians have become intellectually lazy letting the
unbelieving world doing the thinking for them.

His point about having a high regard for divine revelation is very
good. But I�m afraid he is not consistent in following his own
advice. He fails to take Genesis in a straightforward manner, instead
calling the Garden of Eden story a �metaphor.� How disappointing !
He clearly states that death came into the world by Adam�s fall. But
he fails to see that by allowing for ancestors before Adam and
theistic evolution, he is allowing for death before Adam. In not
taking Genesis in a straightforward manner, Mr. Sheed has had to
resort to somewhat lame sophistries Well, he is not the only one who
has allowed for death before Adam. Others in so called Protestant
denominations have allowed for this error. To be charitable, Mr.
Sheed was writing at a time when science seemed to have the upper hand
in explaining the world. How was he to know that the �Piltdown Man�
was later to be proven a fraud in 1952? Books such as ICONS OF
EVOLUTION by Jonathan Wells and SHATTERING THE MYTHS OF DARWINISM were
not readily available in Mr. Sheed�s time.

The book is more focused on the teaching of the Roman Catholic church
than the �mechanics� or practices of the church. And he does quite
a thorough job of explaining in detail the teaching of his church.
His explanation of how one is saved reminds me of what I read about
the debate between the Roman Catholic Erasmus and Martin Luther.

While, I would like everyone to be Confessional Lutheran, I realize
that is not possible. But perhaps I could encourage my Roman Catholic
friends to become better informed about the teachings and practice of
their church. Better a magisterial Catholic who is pro life, than a
secular Catholic who is �pro choice.� Frank Sheed�s book does an
excellent job of explaining the beliefs and some of the practices of
the Roman Catholic church.

The CATHOLIC SUNDAY MISSAL (pg 12-13), written about 1956, before the
changes of Vatican II, states that Latin is used not because it is
necessary, but to insure uniformity of worship throughout the world.
If memory serves me correctly, the explanation I heard from the
Society of Pius X group is that someone from Korea could worship with
someone from the United States using the Tridentine Mass in Latin. I
think the book is saying that the mass in Latin shows the universality
or Catholicity of the church: i.e. unity. The Orthodox have taken a
different approach and offered the mass in the language of the people,
which I think shows the diversity of the church. Unfortunately the
language of the people in the Orthodox churches has changed over the
years. Russians and other Slavic groups no longer speak Slavonic.
Modern Greek is not the same as the Greek of Biblical time.

I can see the point of emphasizing the universality of the church.
However, I thought the other arguments for the use of Latin, such as
it being ancient and unchanging to be unconvincing. The same missal
mentions the Greek litany of the Kyrie (Kyrie Eleison, Christe
Eleison) stating this reminds the worshiper of the first centuries
of the Christian church when the entire mass was said in Greek (pg
25). I doubt if the argument of the ancient nature of the Latin
language would have carried much weight with worshipers in the early
church when the language switched from Greek to Latin. Well the
point of the use of Latin is moot, since Vatican II allowed the mass
to be said in the language of the people. I would not say this is a
break with tradition, since practice is in line with the Orthodox
church which is as ancient as the Roman Catholic church.

I think those who insist on Latin are missing the principle. Latin
became the universal language of Western Europe. It superseded Greek,
which was the universal language of the Roman Empire (at least where
the church was located). The New Testament was written in Greek.
Later the New Testament and Old Testament were translated into Latin
by Saint Jerome. It was called the Vulgate. My guess is the Latin of
Jerome was not classical Latin, but Latin of the people.

For better or worse, English has become the universal language. It is
used in India for business. Chinese who cannot understand each other�s
dialects have used English to communicate. I also remember seeing one
Japanese drama entitled �Five� in which the Chinese and Japanese
ladies spoke to each other in English. A Spanish fan of a Japanese
anime series explained that the reason why their website was in
English and Japanese instead of Spanish, was so they could communicate
with foreign fans of that series.

So to show the universality of the church, I propose that the mass all
over the world should be said in English. At one time French was the
universal language. If I had been writing in earlier times, I would
have proposed that the mass be said in French. But since English has
taken the place of Latin or French as the universal language, I
propose English as the language of the mass.