Critics of Matthew Kelly?
Since today is Australia Day, I thought I’d write a few words about Matthew Kelly, an Australian evangelist and founder of the Dynamic Catholic Institute who has written many well-known books such as “Rediscovering Catholicism” and “The Rhythm of Life”.
In recent months I’ve noticed an increasing number of voices on the Internet criticizing Matthew’s work and organization. After seeing some of these blog entries and Facebook discussions, I’ve been left a little uneasy by some of the unbridled criticism I’ve read…
Rediscovering Jesus
A lot the the recent hubbub surrounding Matthew relates to the latest book to come out of Dynamic Catholic, “Rediscover Jesus”. Some people are critical of the section of the book which discusses Jesus’ Resurrection, since it appears to deny the Catholic teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity:
Was this some sort of vision, perhaps prompted by the apostles’ grief over their leader’s execution? This wouldn’t explain the dramatic conversion of Saul, an opponent of Christians, or James, the once-skeptical half-brother of Jesus. – Rediscover Jesus (Page 99)
The text itself is not actually the words of Matthew Kelly, but an extended quotation from an article by the well-known Evangelical author, Lee Strobel. Most blog posts omitted to mention this in their initial assessments of the book, but I was glad to see that clarifications were later added when this was pointed out.
When visiting a parish I do have to resist the urge to nitpick the homily and among my friends I’m notorious for being rather pedantic, particularly when it comes to theology. As such, I do appreciate it when the Faith is clearly and accurately communicated and in this respect I can appreciate the critics’ complaints about the passage. I think it would have at least been advisable for Matthew to have added a footnote or a preamble to the article, clarifying the Catholic Church’s teaching concerning Jesus’ earthly family. Ideally, I think it would have probably been better to avoid including the article at all.
What I found troubling among the online discussion is the assumption of intended heresy made by many Matthew’s critics. After all, which of these seems more likely?
Scenario #1: Matthew is in open rebellion against the Church and is purposefully denying the Catholic teaching
Scenario #2: It was an accidental inclusion of an inaccurate term
In every other respect, Matthew has shown himself to be a faithful son of the Church. Therefore, doesn’t Scenario #2 really seem more likely? Should there really be cries of “Heresy!” quite so readily? Wouldn’t it be prudent to get clarification from Dynamic Catholic before piling up too much kindling?
General Criticism
As I read the Facebook discussion threads and Comment Boxes, I saw more general criticism of Matthew’s work, much of which I found somewhat bewildering.
Pop Psychology?
Several of the complaints about Matthew involved a description of his work as “pop psychology”. To what did this refer? When I asked, I was directed to Matthew’s regular use of the phrase “become the best version of yourself”…
Matthew explains the history of this phrase in his book “Four Signs of a Dynamic Catholic”. In his earlier talks, he noticed that when he spoke about the Second Vatican Council’s “universal call to holiness” (Lumen Gentium), the eyes of his audience would glaze over. Then one day, purely by accident, he instead used the phrase “become the best version of yourself” and found that people started to become animated and engaged, so he continued to use the expression in his talks and books.
To become holy, to become a Saint, is the same thing as to “become the best version of yourself”, to become all that God calls you to be. It’s not pop psychology, it’s just plain old Catholic teaching with a shift in language.
Shallow?
Another word I’ve seen used to describe Matthew’s work is unfortunately “shallow”. Personally, I would disagree with this assessment, but I would also say that if you would rather sit down with Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica” or Augustine’s “City of God”, then you are probably not the intended audience for many of Matthew’s books and DVDs.
You will notice that the book and CD giveaways encouraged by Dynamic Catholic almost always take place at Easter and Christmas. Why Easter and Christmas? It is because these events are the mission fields of the New Evangelization. Many of those who turn up at Christmas will have last visited a church the previous Easter! These people are disengaged. They have probably not read a single book about the Faith as an adult. They know very little about Christianity. They find Mass boring and the Catholic Church irrelevant. These are the people which need to be evangelized. As one person in a Facebook discussion thread wrote:
“As a convert and now ‘traddy’ I have to admit that Kelly’s books were good for me at the time I was discerning the Faith. His books appealed to my evangelical mindset and helped me to transition into deeper Catholic writings as my studies continued. Admittedly I feel I’ve gone beyond his stuff but I can see how this type of writing can spur folks onwards to Holy Mother Church.”
I keep a couple of CDs and DVDs of Matthew Kelly’s presentation “The Seven Pillars of Catholic Spirituality” in my bag at all times to give out to Catholics I encounter who have fallen away from the Church. In his talk, Matthew outlines what he regards as the pillars of Catholic spirituality:
1. Sacrament of Confession
2. Contemplation
3. The Mass
4. Scripture
5. Fasting
6. Spiritual Reading
7. The Rosary
I’d say this is a great, accessible primer for those who have either left the Church or are sitting on its margins. This presentation is also of great value to those more engaged Catholics. It was the first talk I heard by Matthew and it made quite an impact on me, particularly his explanations concerning fasting and the Sacrament of Confession. In large part due to this talk, I started to take weekly fasting more seriously and committed to going to Confession at least once a month.
Alternatives?
In the many discussions I have read, many said that there are better books/CDs out there to give away…but rather unfortunately they omitted to name any of them! It’s very easy to criticize and throw stones, but I would suggest that it is much more constructive and helpful to illustrate the perceived deficiencies by suggesting some alternatives.
The only suggestion I’ve ever received has been the Baltimore Catechism. Now, please don’t misunderstand me, it’s a fine catechism, but is that really what you’d give a lukewarm Catholic who attends Mass occasionally? I don’t doubt that many Catholics are poorly catechized, for a long time I was one of them, but I don’t think anything would have motivated me in the early days to sit down and plough through a catechism. It has been pointed out to me that children used to read and memorize it, but it’s important to remember that they were made to! I think it’s fairly safe to say that few Catholics who regard the Faith as boring would countenance such an undertaking voluntarily. I would suggest that if someone is going to read the Baltimore Catechism, chances are that he’s already pretty committed to the Faith.
If you haven’t already guessed, I appreciate Dynamic Catholic’s work. They provide an impressive library of resources to help you find the right book, CD or DVD for the right person. Among their catalogue of materials, you’ll find publications by the wonderful Philosopher Peter Kreeft, the well-known chastity speaker Jason Evert and, one of my personal favourites, the late, great Archbishop Fulton Sheen. If you want a single copy of anything publication, you just have to pay for postage. Alternatively, you can bulk order books and CDs, an absolute bargain at just $2 each. Many other apostolates such as Lighthouse Catholic Media, Word on Fire and St. Joseph Communications have adopted similar programmes, providing affordable resources to invigorate your parish and draw people closer to Christ and His Church, and for that I’m grateful.
Actually, I don’t think it matters what you give to whom. If the Lord is calling them, they will read that which will lead them to the Church.
Having said that, someone handed one to me (Rediscover Jesus). He’s a guy who can’t seem to take that step into the Catholic Church. He’s been telling me he’s coming back, for years now. I guess someone had given it to him and he knew I’m a sucker for Catholic books, so he passed it on.
So, its not going to do him any good if he doesn’t read it. Someone may as well have handed him the Baltimore Catechism.
Anyway, I read it and you’re right. It’s targeted for atheists, agnostics and fallen away Catholics. The title is pretty obvious. It’s not targeting devout Christians. It’s for people who don’t know Jesus.
When I went through my reversion, I picked up “Our Lady’s Beloved Sons, the Marian Movement of Priests” by Father Gobbi. And I devoured it. Prior to that, religious books were the last thing I wanted to see. I would have rather read Playboy for the articles. Riiiight.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not advising not to pass it out. I’m saying, pass it out and pass out anything else you’ve got and talk to them and take them by the hand all the way to the Altar. The Spirit of God blows where it will. You never know whether God has preceded you. All we do is plant and water, God causes the growth.
The only thing I’d say is that it makes sense to put stuff into people’s hands which will make them most docile to the Spirit.
Online I’ve found lots of people who seem to think handing out the Baltimore Catechism is the thing which’ll fix the Church. I encourage them to give it a go and prove my cynicism wrong!
I’ve been a devout Catholic all my life. I read Rediscover Jesus just recently and absolutely loved it. I think there are many times throughout a persons spiritual journey that they need to be reminded of the basics.
Hey Kristianne, welcome to Restless Pilgrim!
I completely agree. My friends know me as a theology nerd and have commented when they’ve seen me walking around with books like “Catholicism for Dummies” and “Prayer for beginners”. Sometimes we need to get back to basics and put some “fun” back in “fundamentals” 🙂
Great article. I think you are totally right.
I’d like to ask why do so many Protestants state just like Lee Strobel: “James, the once skeptical half brother of Jesús”. Maybe they read: ” then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles” 1 Cor.15:7 ?
Thank you and God bless you
There are three people identified as James in Scripture:
1. James, the son of Zebedee. Martyred AD 44 (see Acts 12:2)
2. James, the son of Alphaeus. Little is known about him.
3. James of Jerusalem (“James the Just”). He was Jesus’ “kinsman” (see Mark 6:3). Resurrection Witness (see 1 Cor 15:7). “Pillar of the Church” (see Gal 2:9). Tradition tells us that he was Bishop of Jerusalem and Martyred in AD 62 (Stoned, clubbed or thrown off the Temple)
From a Catholic point of view, you could avoid all the controversy, simply by changing the quoted sentence to read “James, the once skeptical step-brother of Jesus” and it would then be fine. This would indicate that James was not the biological son of Mary, but a biological son of Joseph from a previous marriage. On Thursday I’ve got another post where I’ll talk about this some more.
In the meantime, I’d invite you to read my post The “brothers” of Jesus.
Hope this helps 🙂
Thank you, David, for your answer and article.
I think the Catholic Tradition does not really support the Joseph’s widow theory:
St. Jerome
“You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more that Joseph himself, on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born [Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 21 (A.D. 383)].
“500 … In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.”. CCC.
Are we aware that two people- James and Joseph- who are explicitly referred to as “brothers” of Jesus are explicitly referred to (by the same gospel writer) as sons of another Mary in Matthew 27:56 ?
The “third” James… from skeptical brother to bishop and pillar of the Church? it sounds strange.
Hey Alfredo,
Thanks for your comment. I did note in the article that St. Jerome subscribed to the Joseph Virgin theory and, not only that, he appears to be the first person recording of this idea, in contrast to the earlier traditions of St. Joseph being a widower. In his work The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Jerome says that he believes James “the brother of the Lord” is the same as James the Less, but this is not necessarily the case. As for it being “strange” that James could “from skeptical brother to bishop and pillar of the Church”, is that any stranger than for a man to go from persecutor of the Church to Apostle to the Gentiles?
God bless,
David.
Thanks David.
“As for it being “strange” that James could “from skeptical brother to bishop and pillar of the Church”, is that any stranger than for a man to go from persecutor of the Church to Apostle to the Gentiles?”
Thank you David, but there is an important difference between St Paul’s conversion and “James’conversion”. St Paul’s conversion is recorded in the New Testament and all Christians agree about it.
Is there any biblical support for “James’conversion”, made apostle and bishop of Jerusalem?. Is James’ conversion even a Church Tradition?
I thought “James’conversion” was a Protestant theory since it is hard to think the other 2 James as Mary’s children.
God bless you
…which would only be a problem if I was a Sola Scriptura Christian, which I’m not. You had thought it strange that James would have had such a dramatic about-turn, so I gave an example from Scripture of an even more dramatic change, St. Paul.
We definitely know that the bishop of Jerusalem was a man named James and, given the early death of the Apostle James the Greater, we know it can’t be him. That then leaves James the Less and references to James “the brother of the Lord”. There are various arguments as to whether or not these are the same people. I list the different references to the name “James”: https://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/commentary/james/introduction/
Thank you David, but think about all these facts:”James and Joses” were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40), Judas, son of James (not either of the Apostles) Lk 6:16.
Please read this from Catholic Answers:
“Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they (Brothers of Jesús) were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).
Then look at what John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.
An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.
So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son”.
I just can’t understand how could a “third James” suddenly and without any known record convert, become bishop and pillar of the Church. Couldn’t it be James the Lesser the “brother of Jesús”? According to John 19:25 Jesús and James’ mothers were sisters
Sure, but there’s lots of figures in Scripture (particularly Acts) who receive little/no introduction and disappear from the scene just as suddenly.
Absolutely. Totally possible.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer. I guess we will never get to know for sure who the “James” St Paul talks about was. Just our speculations… Thanks a lot for bringing out all this interesting matters.
WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SPECIFY THAT JOSEPH WAS MARRIED BEFORE HE MARRIED MARY AND HAD CHILDREN FROM HIS FIRST WIFE? COULD YOU TELL ME WHICH BOOK IN THE BIBLE THAT INFORMATION CAME FRIM? THANK YOU
YOU APPEAR TO HAVE YOUR KEYBOARD STUCK ON CAPS LOCK!
The idea that Joseph was a widower doesn’t come from Scripture. You find this spoken of in the Protoevangelium of James (AD 150) and in Church Fathers such as Epiphanius of Salamis, Gregory of Nyssa, Ephraim, and Hilary. This is the dominant position in Eastern Christianity.
Hi, here in Africa people traditionally refer to their cousins as brothers or sisters . Since language evolves over time I personally believe that the word cousin was probably nonexistent in the time of Christ. I could be wrong and maybe language historians will be more qualified to give an answer but I believe that the chance exists that the “brothers of Christ” could have been His cousins.
I’m not seeing the rub. Firstly, nothing that Matthew wrote set off any yellow lights in me (and I think I have a pretty sensitive Catholic radar). Secondly, we should have a sense of charity to assume the best of someone’s intentions rather than the worst. Thirdly, to me, half-brother means the same as step-brother. I naturally assume that James is Joseph’s son given the Perpetual Virginity of Our Blessed Lady. It’s all a green light to me.
BTW, your “Brothers of Jesus” article was really helpful in untangling a rather messy knot that most Protestants don’t have the pluck to attempt. I especially enjoy your apologetics articles; can we look forward to a return to more of those? No pressure. 🙂
To positively affirm that James is Jesus’ half-brother necessitates a denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary…which is contrary to the Catholic Faith.
Absolutely, and this was the main thing that’s horrified me in the discussions, the assumption of heresy. I’d have expected a little more grace!
While technically incorrect, I do think a lot of people don’t really make a distinction between the two. I have a step-brother through my Dad’s second marriage and I’ve had people refer to him as my half-brother. I’ve also heard very orthodox priests (who would never deny the perpetual virginity for a second) mistakenly refer to James as a “half brother”.
With regards to Mr. Kelly’s book, I think a footnote could have averted a lot of the criticism I’ve seen.
Thanks 🙂
Looking at the posts scheduled for the next month or so, I’ve got a couple of posts where I rebut some atheist memes. Is there a particular area of apologetics that you’d like to see here? I’ve got a goal to do an extended series on Islam some time this year.
No, I don’t have any particular apologetics topics right now, but I will send them your way if they arise. I will be very interested in anything regarding Islam; I’m definitely looking forward to that.
But let’s back up to the half-brother of Jesus for another second. Are you saying that if Jesus had a half-brother, that he would have been a product of Joseph and Mary? Would the reasoning be that Jesus’ parents were Mary and the Holy Spirit, while Jesus’ half-brother’s parents would have been Mary and Joseph? Do I have that correct? BTW, these terms and concepts are rather sticky to verbalize. I trust you understand what I mean by ‘parents’ in this context.
I’m just trying to define the concepts here clearly. Thanks.
That is correct.
The dictionary definition of “half-brother” is “a brother with whom one has only one parent in common”. Biologically speaking, Jesus had no biological relationship with Joseph. The two did not share any DNA. Therefore, for James and Jesus to have “one parent in common”, it would have to be through Mary…thus denying her perpetual virginity.
The dictionary definition of “step brother” is “a son of one’s stepparent, by a marriage other than that with one’s own father or mother”. Therefore, if Joseph had James from a previous marriage, James and Jesus would be step brothers. They would be joined by law, but would have no shared biology from a common parent.
Got it!
Great 🙂 The article about the Eastern tradition concerning St. Joseph’s family is also now published.
Even after reading Dynamic Catholic, I don’t see how “become the best version of yourself” is equivalent to “the universal call to holiness.” When I was an evangelical, the term was “Christ-likeness,” not “me-likeness.” I don’t want to become more like myself, but like Jesus. The saints I’ve read all talk about greater unity of the soul with Christ. Kelly has many good points. Overall, however, I think his approach is too much an attempt to make the Catholic faith sound like a good business plan.
Hey Brian, welcome to Restless Pilgrim and thanks for your comments 🙂
For some people, the “universal call to holiness” sounds like a call to uniform holiness, that to become a Saint means to lose all trace of what makes you…you. I’ve encountered people that think holiness is exclusively defined by how many days a week you go to Mass and how many scapulars you have around your neck.
However, this is not the case. As Matthew points out when he talks about the Saints, they were an incredibly varied bunch. Some were single and some were married. Some were academic and some had little to no education. Some were fiery and some were gentle. The thing which unites them all is their love for Jesus. How that love for Christ was lived out in each of their lives was incredibly different. Some went to foreign lands to preach, some lived out their calling in family life, some as teachers, politicians, … For Saint Francis, to “become the best version of himself” meant to renounce worldly goods and be a wandering preacher. For Saint Thomas Moore, to “become the best version of himself” meant to be the best statesman he could be and stand up to the king when the time called for it. For Saint Therese, to “become the best version of herself” meant to join the Carmelites and live a life of prayer. Personally, rather than “become the best version of yourself”, I personally prefer the phrase “become who God is calling you to be”.
I take your point about it sometimes sounding like Matthew is simply presenting the Catholic Faith as a good business plan. I can certainly see why one could walk away with that impression. I would say, however, that if the Catholic Faith is true then it’s not to say that life will be nothing but flowers and candy, but it will be a life most in touch with reality and therefore, simply put, the best way to live.
I was born Catholic and will die a Catholic.
Just a thought, why is it that when people are in their death bed, sick or in bad situations they always turn or pray..Lord please help me. Lord, please heal me blah blah blah. Hypocrisy at its best.
To each his own..
Good job David! Matthew Kelly is awesome–his program (that he gives away for FREE!) for Confirmation students is also wonderful and orthodox from what I’ve seen (called Decision Point). Agree with all the points you made and I’m glad you are standing up against the Matthew Kelly bullying and silliness of facebook soapbox demonizing….I mean I do get taking issue with items that could lead people astray (whether intentional or not), but I think sometimes….most times, the internet is way too negative and we feel the need to blow things up, and gossip and fall into a Catholic version of tabloidizing. I’m probably doing it now…being negative. I am. I will stop. Good job David, Matthew Kelly, and even people who are trying to stand up for truth but doing it somewhat uncharitably…Jesus loves us all… peace be with you:-)
Thanks 🙂 I actually wrote this article quite a while ago but I decided to wait a bit before posting, returning to it after a couple of weeks, giving myself a chance to re-read it with fresh eyes and make sure I wasn’t being overly aggressive.
Thank you for taking the time to write this!
You’re welcome Hosea, and welcome to Restless Pilgrim 🙂
It is clear in scripture that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations and along with that other children. Matthew 1:25, Matthew 19:5, Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5:31 Union, united, on flesh all are references to sexual intimacy. The Virgin birth does not mean Mary remained a Virgin after Jesus’ birth. Joeseph and Mary had children. Matthew 13:55-56, Matthew 12:46, John 2:12. If we want to claim these “brothers” are cousins or half brothers from a previous marriage of Joseph we may also call Mary the Aunt of Jesus and not mother. We have to consider how Catholism has twisted scripture in order to fit into their tradition. Mary was a human with sin, chosen by God to be a vessel to bring forth the Prince of Peace. She was not conceived immaculately, and she is not the mediator between God and man. Romans 6:23, 1Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 9:15, 12:24.
Hey Janet,
Welcome to Restless Pilgrim! I’ll keep this brief because I often write a responses to messages like this and then never hear from the person again. I’m happy to dialogue, but I don’t want to write a long response only for it to be ignored.
You quoted Matthew 1:25. Do you know the linguistic reason why this text doesn’t necessarily imply that Mary and Joseph came together in the conjugal act after her pregnancy?
I’m not sure I follow you argument that about calling Mary “the Aunt of Jesus and not mother”. Scripture is very clear that Jesus is Mary’s son. If the other “brothers” were from Joseph’s previous marriage she would be their step-mother. Are you aware that in Israelite culture (much like Asian and African culture today), family terms like “brother” and “sister” were used very liberally?
If Jesus had other brothers, do you agree that it would have been a huge slap in the face to give the care of His mother at the foot of the cross to St. John?
When Gabriel comes to Mary and tells her she’s going to have a child, why does she act surprised? She was an engaged woman and knew where babies came from. Why then did she ask “How can this be?”…unless she wasn’t intending on consummating her marriage?
Can you explain why extant proof of the Christian belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity appears so early in Church history? As an aside, you claim the Catholic Church has twisted Scripture to fit the Tradition, but do you recognize that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon of Scripture and preserved the text throughout the centuries? If not, can you give me some names of people who did?
Finally, you appear to be under the impression that Mary’s intercession somehow takes away from Jesus’ mediation. This is not the case at all. Jesus’ mediation is unique, but it is a mediation into which He calls ALL Christians. I am sure that if we looked at your Christian walk, we could draw up a very long list of people who mediated to you the grace of God. Your parents? Your friends? Your pastor? In fact, I am sure you have mediated God’s grace to others. However, none of these mediations detract from Jesus’ mediation. In fact, their mediation is only possible because of His.
God bless,
David.
I guess after three plus years, still no reply from Janet..
I hope Janet converted to Catholicism…
Jesus himself said I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the father except through me. We can debate the half-brother, cousin, stepbrother position of Jesus and his ” family” till Kingdom come. We are commanded to keep our eyes on Jesus but to elevate Mary in any way shape or form gets in the way of that. To make comments like oh I hope so and so has turned to Catholicism tells me all I need to know. No one has all the answers.
Hey Jason, welcome to Restless Pilgrim!
Mary’s perpetual virginity wasn’t initially a matter of debate in the Early Church. That only came later.
But that very much depends upon what you regard as “elevating”. Honouring those whom God has honour is simply the virtue of Justice.
All it tells you is that the Catholic Church makes certain claims to be the pillar and foundation of the truth.
If that’s the case, surely it means that everyone is a heretic is in some way?
When did Jesus institute the sacrament of Confession? Thanks
Hey John,
Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Confession after His Resurrection, when He appeared to the Apostles. In John’s Gospel, we are told that He breathed on them and gave them authority to forgive sins:
The Father sent the Son to forgive sins and reconcile man to God, and “as the Father sent [the Son]”, Jesus is now sending the Apostles out to forgive sins on the basis of His authority and to reconcile man to God.
Thanks,
David.
Wow! It’s a sad time when people can’t find the good and right discernment of a wonderful God driven spirit as Matthew Kelly. Stay strong Matthew. God bless you and protect you.
All I wanted to do was send a comment to Mr. Kelly letting him know that this 83 year old enjoyed every word written. Do I always agree? Of course not! I am as human as you are but you are exceptional and the bit of humor in your works make my day! Sincerely, Marie Prielipp
Dear Marie,
Welcome to RestlessPiglrim.net! This website isn’t affiliated with Matthew Kelly. If you’d like to get that message to him, I’d recommend trying to contact Dynamic Catholic directly.
God bless,
David.
I must say… this website is really good. i like the conversations i am reading. The Holy Spirit is working. Thank you for creating and posting this article. I will definitely come back here to get more insights about my Catholic faith.
I really like Matthew Kelly and i find his words really resounding well to the youth; we have used Decision Point for confirmation classes and the youth are engaged with what they watched. And since i read his book, I strive to be the best version of myself each day.
Thanks glad to hear it!
Not founded on solid exegetical truth from the holy Scriptures. Read. And re-read. And again until the Word is reading you. The. Whole. Counsel. Of Scripture. There are no over-arching themes as presented here. Junk food will fill you up and starve a person. It may have started out with nourishing whole grain. But through bleaching, processing, and additives it becomes something that looks good, smells delicious, and tastes that hits the spot. It’s sad that the Catholic Church that preserved so much i.e. the Bible. But runs to traditions than Holy Writ. May I turn your attention to any book by John MacArthur with a title of, “The Gospel According to…”. In any or all the writer painstakingly adds nothing the scriptures. He exegetes the text. Not according to what he thinks. Not according to what any church or denomination thinks. He spills a sea of ink to accurately tell you, the reader, what the text says. From the Greek and Hebrew. Discover for yourself. It. Is. The. Most. Vital. Important. Life giving. Thing. You Could Ever Do. I plead with you to do this. Then go back and marinate yourself in The Word of God. Joy will always be yours.
Not really much to say to this since it wasn’t related to the post in the slightest. My guess is that this is probably copy-and-pasted into the comment section of many a Catholic blog you come across.
Interestingly though, you do seem to concede that the Catholic Church was the entity which assembled and preserved the Bible, which begs the question: why should I listen to John MacArthur’s personal, fallible interpretation of the Bible, rather than the one handed down to us from the Fathers?
I just finished reading Matthew Kelly’s “Rediscovering Jesus’. I found it to be quite “convicting” and thought provoking in several chapters. Those chapters hit things that I have been dealing with and need to change.
Of course, in reading any text that expounds on the scriptures, the reader must be able to decipher if what is written is truth or not. Thus, one needs to be a student of the scriptures, led by the Holy Spirit. Even then, not every point is going to be humanly deciphered correctly, as in “the half-brother of Jesus”. That’s a 2,000 year old debate which we may never answer in this life. I still can read the book even though I may disagree with one point.
However, today, there is so much untruth and distortions of scriptures being taught by many denominations and individuals. Many churches are turning away from the truth and adopting principles that are easily seen to contradict the scriptures. There are many people blindly following these teachers of deception. They are likely not students of the scriptures and thus believe what their church leaders say without searching the scriptures to determine if they are truth or not.
Each one of us is responsible for our own salvation. We must look to God through His Holy Spirit to lead us to truth and away from deception. Without that, many do and will find themselves in a place that they did not expect to be because they followed the teachings of deceivers and did not pay attention to what the Gospel says to us.
Jesus is the dividing line. Our head and heart belief in Jesus as Lord and Risen Christ is the deciding factor on where we spend eternity.
Romans 10:9-10 New King James Version:
“That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
AS a supporter of Matthew Kelly, who was brought up with the Baltimore Catechism I believe he is filling a void. He has been given a gift and as a disciple of Jesus the criticism is part of the cross that he carries. The only problem I find with the Dynamic Catholic books is that not enough are read. We are made in Gods image so how can anyone fault a calling to be the best version of our self. I wish I had these programs when I taught CCD . They seem orthodox to me. So many wonderful programs out there that teach the faith. We are blessed and remember only Jesus was perfect so give others a break, include yourself.
My question to Mr. Kelly is: Do you have a born again relationship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? John 14:6 says: “ I Am the way , the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Me”. You have to confess your are a sinner telling Christ you need him in your life and invite Him to come into your heart today. I pray this for Mr. Kelly and all who do not know Jesus personally. Now is the time, not tomorrow or the future, NOW.
Why do you think he’d deny this?
Thank you, Barbara! I come in agreement with you that Matthew will be drawn to the Truth (Jesus) by the power of The Holy Spirit. Where two or more are gathered…as we gather via the internet, nonetheless, LET IT BE SO.
Where i used to live, there was a group that followed Matthew Kelly, and distributed his stuff. Then they quietly dropped him…
A nonbeliever of Kelly’s “messages” lent me one of his books, and one supposed “message” from God the Father hit me between the eyes like the proverbial house brick: “(going from memory) Woe to you unbelievers who say that these messages are from the deranged mind of a young boy. YOU WILL FEEL MY WRATH ON JUDGEMENT DAY…” Er, no!!! The only ones who will feel God’s wrath on Doomsday will be those already in Hell.
God would not say that about what at “best”, would be PRIVATE REVELATION. If those words didn’t come from Kelly’s own mind…they may have have come from…Hell!!! This is not just a small slip, and his disciples should have been alerted by it
i defy anyone to prove me wrong on those words. What other “slips” have there been? His messages can’be trusted. Tragically, many Catholics don’t know the Church’s teachings on private revelation, and that includes Medjugorje (misspelt!) etc.
0
i
It’s his early books where he speaks about his private revelations. I knew of their existence but never read them because private revelation doesn’t particularly interest me.
I’m not going to comment much on a paraphrase of a memory of a book, but I think there’s probably a more charitable interpretation of a passage like that (if those were the exact words). After all, if on Judgement Day a non-Christian recalls calling Matthew deranged, I think they’re likely to regret dismissing his words out-of-hand. From what I know, Kelly was obedient to his bishop and spiritual director during the writing of that book, so I don’t think it’s particularly charitable to suggest that they were demonic communications, particularly if they didn’t teach anything against the Faith.
The bottom line for me is that Kelly a Catholic who has always shown himself to be a faithful son of the Church and done tremendous work revitalizing the faith of many.
Actually the local Bishop in Sydney formally directed Matthew to stop speaking about his claims due to the problematic content of his so-called locutions from God the Father.
And so he obeyed him – surely that makes him a faithful son of the Church?
Why do you ignore the Bishops negative appraisal of Matthew’s claims that he was receiving messages from God the Father.
I appreciate that Matthew did not go rogue by publicly disobeying his Bishop (this would have ended his career as a Catholic celebrity). HOWEVER, Catholics who are discerning will also factor in the Bishop’s demand that Matthew stop promoting his locutions.
I lived two streets from Matthew in Strathfield Australia when this was going on. The Bishop was crystal clear that Matthew’s locutions were at odds with the Catholic faith, and thus we’re not a trustworthy message for average Catholics to be digesting.
Folks who are fully aware of this… and yet insist that Matthew is credible and trustworthy are thinking emotionally instead of rationally. Surely Catholic people should be listening to the guidance of the Church in regard to Mathew Kelly, before they listen to Matthew Kelly regarding Matthew Kelly?
Even locutions which are now widely accepted today have received censure from their local Bishops at times, so while not insignificant, it’s also not a guarantee. All I know is that the Bishop told him to stop and he was obedient. Given that we’re living in the age where disobedience to bishops is extremely fashionable, this speaks highly to his character as far as I’m concerned. No other restrictions were placed upon Kelly, nor to my knowledge was a warning distributed to the Diocese. To criticize Kelly’s later work and ministry on the basis of this is basically an Ad Hominem.
You say that the Bishop said that his locutions were against the Catholic Faith. Can you point me to some documentation on this?
Matthew initially gained notoriety by claiming that he was receiving direct revelations from God the Father. He published several books providing hundreds of messages he apparently received from God the Father. I attended a Catholic conference in 1998 in Portland Oregon where Matthew gave a 60 minute speech about his revelations. It was the main means he used to project his profile upward as a Catholic voice in America and Australia.
For several years he promoted his locutions as authentic… yet now… that entire chapter of his life seems to have been completely scrubbed from his bio.
I think this is one of the main reasons that certain Catholic people question Matthew’s credibility.
I don’t think that’s the reason at all – many people don’t even know about that period in his life and that’s not the primary criticism I hear about him. Also, I don’t know of anywhere where he’s denied those initial locutions – he does seem to put his focus elsewhere, but that could be for many different reasons.
I think your answer is deflecting for Matthew.
Given his history, it’s completely reasonable for Catholic people to question Matthew’s credibility.
When a man gains his initial notoriety completely due to his claims of ongoing supernatural messages being received from God the Father… and when he vigorously promotes this particular claim for close to 10 years… and then, suddenly, all reference to his “messages from heaven” are 100% scrubbed from his bio… it brings into question his authenticity and his truthfulness.
I have one of the books he published which provides his conversations with God the Father. He actually signed the book for me when he sold it so me at the end of a Marian conference in Portland in 1998. Unfortunately, the book has numerous problematic statements in it which would force any knowledgeable Catholic to distance themselves from Matthew.
If Matthew was, in fact, not receiving locutions from God the Father (and he was actually just making them up), then his credibility is completely shot. Catholics should be wary of him as someone who does not always tell the truth.
Right now, Matthew (on his personal website) tells us that:
“Matthew started his first business when he was just thirteen years old. Before he was twenty he started a clothing company, an entertainment business, and an advertising agency.”
What he doesn’t tell you is that the clothing company was merchandise he had stolen. He got in big trouble for this theft as a young person. How do I know this? I grew up in the same suburb as Matthew and attended the same Catholic youth group as Matthew in Strathfield Australia. We were both teenagers at the time. In those days, he would give a talk to our youth group describing his theft of the clothing and his profiting from the theft. It was a “I was a bad person, but Christ brought me back” kind of talk.
The fact that he now lists this clothing company as one of his achievements on his website is not a huge issue, however, for me, it’s an indication that he is still willing to tell some fibs to promote himself.
Apart from producing problematic “locutions” and passing them off as actual messages from God the Father… Matthew still has some problems when it comes to not exaggerating or (in fact) lying to the public (again, about himself).
I take Matthew with a grain of salt. And I advise Catholic people to keep their wits about them if they come into contact with him.
The worst sort of message is the Catholic message that’s 90% solid and 10% problematic. These kinds of “Catholic celebrities” end up sowing weed among the wheat.
Here are some passages where the other sons of Mary by Joseph are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19).
Where does the text say that they were “sons of Mary by Joseph”? Nothing in the text, whether in English or Greek, supports that claim.