I know I shouldn't rise to the bait of swapping proof texts with Protestants, but I do find it curious how, for being so Bible based and knowledgeable about the Bible they so often miss the obvious.
Joe Hippo--who is quite an indignant ex Catholic--asks where in Scripture we find support for the monarchical papacy. He doesn't like what he sees as pretension and pomp of the papacy. I know Joe won't accept this verse, but it seems perfectly fine to me if the pope, bishops and priests assume the signs of royalty for we are "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (2 Pt. 5:9)
The royal priesthood is one of service and sacrifice, and when Popes grasped at secular power or when priests and prelates exercise their power oppressively and fall into corruption they betray their high royal calling. Of course, these faults are not limited to Catholic clergy. We can all think of Anglican bishops who love their palaces, chauffeur driven cars and trappings office a bit too much, not to mention the televangelists with their fleet of Bentleys and huge bank accounts. Nevertheless, abuses should not undo right uses.
Joe also asks for Biblical evidence for the pious opinion that the Blessed Virgin Mary is co-redemptrix. I should remind readers that this is not Catholic dogma, but a theological opinion. However, there is Biblical support for the view in Luke 2:34-35, "Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against,so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”
First of all, notice that Simeon is a prophet. He is foretelling the future, and in the Jewish prophetic tradition the prophet not only has power to foretell future events, but the events often have a theological and salvific importance. Simeon foresees Christ's redemptive work "the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed" . When does this happen? At the cross when Christ's own heart is pierced by a spear. He sees that Mary will share in this redemptive action for her own heart will be pierced also.
The idea that Mary is co-redemptrix is simply the belief that, by virtue of being the Mother of the Redeemer, she has an inextricable link with all that he is and does--Simeon's prophecy recognizes this--and that this mysterious link also binds her to the saving work of her son. That we can share in the full and sufficient sacrifice of Christ and his redemptive work is shown in St Paul's acceptance that his own suffering 'completes the work of Christ on the cross.' (Col. 1:24) This is only the outworking of Christ's own command that we should do just this: "If any man would be my disciple let him take up his cross and follow me." If St Paul shared in the redemptive work of Christ through his suffering, all the more should the Blessed Mother for her link with Christ is the most intimate--and she points the way to a sharing in the redemptive work of Christ that we are all called to.
I don't suppose for a moment that these proof texts and explanations will make Joe Hippo scamper off to confession to be reconciled to the church--he will simply dismiss them and explain them away (as he did the Biblical support for apostolic tradition) but at least they show that Catholic doctrines and practices are not quite the foolish fabrications that some Protestants would like to make out.
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
To be fair, Father - the gentleman's name is Joe D'Hippolito (and if I have rendered it incorrectly, I welcome correction).
I know, but I've nicknamed him 'Joe Hippo' in the combox and he doesn't seem to mind.
No I won't be rushing back to St. Anyparish in Anytown USA for Confession and "Come Home to Rome". You know Fr. it really and truly breaks my heart leaving the RCC, it has so many good things but I had to leave because it has so much error and false teaching as well.
Recently you posted some good things about how diverse the RCC is, and well how "Catholic" it is. Unfortunately Rome isn't diverse or "Catholic" enough to allow me to stay in it with my Evangelical beliefs of Grace Alone, Justification by Faith Alone, Christ Alone.
Also a question I meant to ask, could someone like me go to Confession, return to the Church without accepting everything right away with the hope that eventually they might change their mind, but even if they never came to accept everything can they remain a "Communicant member" of the RCC.
Ugh, I've seen Mr. D'Hippolito's slide from a fervent believer to his current state. He seems to mirror Rod Dreher's slide into Orthodoxy.
Dr Eric, I have to say that only a few of Joseph D'Hippolito's rants get through my moderation. If I posted all his long and rather irrational tirades you would be even more dismayed.
John, you ought to read my book More Christianity. It is not the Grace, Faith and Christ we object to in your belief system, but the word 'alone'.
This must cause you to deny certain truths which give balance to the whole Truth, and this in turn will give you a more narrow rather than a more full experience of the Christian faith.
My experience has been that within the practice of Catholicism I have found the fullness of faith, Christ and grace. To clarify, Catholics agree with you on 'grace alone.' We also agree with you on 'Christ alone'. However how you define 'Christ' may be the cause for discussion. However 'faith alone' is clearly contrary to Scripture. (James 2:20)
Also within Catholicism I have had to learn to discern and sift through many ordinary practices which are wrong and many abuses which need to be corrected. While I am a faithful Catholic I am not an uncritical Catholic.
In answer to your question, a person in your situation could return to confession and be reconciled with the church while be uncertain about some aspects of Catholicism
However, your attitude to these things would have to be, "I accept these things on the authority of the Church, but I do not understand fully and I seek to understand--even if that seeking is a struggle that lasts a lifetime."
On the other hand, if the attitude is one of denial and rejection of the fullness of Catholic Truth with cynicism and bitterness, then you'd better not.
John,
Your posts keep explaining about your leaving the Church - and I do not doubt for a second that this must have been difficult for you - but I have yet to see positive reasons for joining the particular Anglican parish you have settled in, why the 39 Articles of Medieval England over Luther's catechism or whatever?
If you believe in sola scriptura are you comfortable with the fact that you, at present, are in communion with those who can in good conscience say that they disagree with you, say on the Real Presence, moral or salvation issues?
John: Pray, ask God for guidance and study, perhaps, look into justification again perhaps - Grace Alone and Faith Alone are not the same thing. Read Newman's lectures on justification if you're after a challenge!!
As I type this at my local bookstore I have with me and am going to purchase your book "More Christianity", when I finish reading it we can dialogue about it.
My attitude right now towards certain Catholic Dogmas is that I simply cannot accept them, I am willing to be open to the fact that I am wrong but right now I just cannot see myself accepting them. I know many Catholics, many of whom are quite active in their Parishes IE Choir, Home and Nursing Home Visitation, Eucharistic Ministers etc who simply cannot and do not accept some Catholic Dogmas so it seems that I am not the only one who has these issues. So Fr. L, given the above, what say you, am I able to return under my current circumstances?
John, I hope you enjoy MC, and I am happy to discuss it with you.
I cannot judge (nor can you) the state of the souls of others.
I have already stated on what terms you should return to the church. Come back honest about your difficulties, but do not let them become doubts.
Newman said, "A thousand difficulties do not make one doubt." I think he meant that an inquiring mind could well have many difficulties about the faith and be seeking to discover the answer not only theologically but also through the mystical path.
However a 'doubt' is an attitude of cynicism, denial and rejection. That sort of attitude is not one of faith, and therefore has no place.
For my part, I have always sought to have more faith, not less. Protestantism seemed, by its nature to be a denial of certain truths and an exclusion of part of the fullness of faith.
I wanted more Christianity not less. Thus the title of my book.
Thank you for this post. I love the line "abuses should not undo right uses" - so true.
John, as a general comment, one thing that I look to for guidance in accepting Church dogmas is the line from 2 John 1:9 -
"Anyone who is so "progressive" as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son."
In response to the comment you made about leaving the RCC because it has so many good things starkly contrasts the following comment about "error and false teachings." I would hesitate to say that the Church has "false teachings" if you mean to say you do not agree with them, seeing as the Church was established by Peter with the guidance of the Christ, who is Truth. Jesus never promised the Church itself would be perfect or made up of only the holy (in fact, quite the opposite-- he calls all God's fallen children)!, but he did say it would uphold Truth. This is the role of the RCC in the world, not just to do good stuff.
Also, to be Catholic means to be in communion with the Church as a whole, so I do not think (nor does the Church advise) one should take communion without being in communion. It is more than a symbol; it is Christ, who endeavors for all of us to live in imitation of him and take up our cross, shedding our prejudices, doubts and desires.
Good luck in your studies, and God bless!
It is curious to see how evangelicals so tenaciously cling to the "faith alone" construct even in light of the teaching of Sacred Scripture (e.g., James 2) that specifically rejects it. In fact, the only place where the phrase "faith alone" appears in Sacred Scripture is in the citation above, and that in order to exclude such a notion!
John, I cannot add to what has already been said.
I will, however, be praying for you this Advent season.
Some suggest that doubt is in and of itself a bad thing, something that must by definition lead us away from faith in Christ. Thomas Merton, however, viewed doubt in quite different terms. I blogged about this a couple weeks ago:
"Doubt and Faith, Forever Linked"
http://themightyambivalentcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/11/merton-on-doubt-faith-forever-linked.html
I find this article fascinating.
I debate quite a bit with Evangelicals, and I've never met one that cares about our interpretation of Sacred Scripture, however literal, reasonable, or 'perspicuous'.
They just accuse me of twisting the text, like if I counter Matt. 23.9 with 1 Cor 4.15, they say that St Paul didn't mean it literally. One man's literal is another man's symbolic, and vice versa, and so we get no where...
They're happy with proof texts until you play the same game, then they start the accusations of ignoring the context, blah, blah, blah.
The best way I've found to deal with it, is to turn the debate onto the growing number of translations they're producing, and ask that, if scripture is to be taken literally, and it's as perspicuous as they suggest, then, by necessity, there would be only one definitive translation which would be, agreed upon, crystal clear to all readers of English of all abilities, and therefore unite them into one church, and then ask them to explain why they don't, and are not.
Any attempt to justify more than one translation, even if for teenagers and the like, undermines the literal/perspicuity argument.
What's more, they understand the argument, and struggle trying to address it without sounding incoherent. In fact, I've found it has opened up the opportunity for serious and respectful dialogue.
I'd genuinely like to hear their views on what they mean by perspicuity if I'm wrong so I can be corrected.
So, 'Hippo', over to you...
The imagery John utilises in the book of Revelation also lends a certain amount of weight to the pious opinion of Mary's co-redeeming role.
And I doubt that anyone pious enough to hold the opinion that Mary is co-redeemer is impious enough to suggest that this puts her on equal footing with Our Lord! Most Blessed of all women still falls a far cry short of any kind of equality with God!
John - I guess we all have to stand before God one day and account for our lives. If you in good conscience really feel that you need to explore further then I suppose all that we can do is keep you in our prayers. But I really do hope that your search will lead you full circle and bring you 'Home' - and that your understanding of the truths that Catholicism has preserved for us since the time of Christ will be that much richer for your travels.
(I know I'm a Johnny-come-lately here and don't really have a right to an opinion on this, but somehow I felt compelled to respond to this discussion. I trust that if this was inappropriate that Fr Longenecker will filter my comment at moderation!)
John, I am going to pray for you every day, this week. And Joe Hippolatio you remember your Mother and return to the God of your youth boy! Judgment day is one day nearer than it was yesterday.
I think your first instinct was correct, Father: you really shouldn't start swapping proof-texts. Nor, while we're in that kind of area, should you invite your readers to contribute favourite sound-bites from the Fathers in order to gang up and put someone else on the spot.
The danger, as you well know, is that we take things out of context and suggest that they have (hidden?) meanings that their authors never dreamt of. Since not one of the Fathers was concerned with Roman Catholic v Protestant interpretations of Scripture, it is at least arguable that every single gobbet that you have elicited has been taken out of context. And anyway, is this really your best shot at loving someone into the kingdom?
If you're cool about calling someone 'Joe Hippo', may we call you Father Giraffe? You do, after all's said and done, have a longe necker...
"I should remind readers that this is not Catholic dogma, but a theological opinion."
So you don't have to believe it if you don't want to? So glad to see that you're coming round to the Anglican way of doing things at last!
Seriously, if we're going to start using terms like 'co-redemptrix' on the basis that Mary the Mother of God "has an inextricable link with all that [Jesus] is and does", where is that going to stop? Is the BVM's mother co-redemptrix - Holy Annie, God's Grannie?
Vic--Fr Giraffe. I like it!
There once was a priest named Giraffe
Who constantly made people laugh.
The bishop was speakin'
and made him Archdeacon--
the crook at the head of his staff.
Vic, what on earth do you mean that the Ante-Nicene fathers were not speaking to Protestants? Their words were addressed to the schismatics and heretics of their day. Nothing has changed.
Also, if the quotes from the Church fathers 'put someone on the spot' why is that uncharitable? I agree with yo that proof text swapping is of limited value, but it has some value in any debate. If people are put on the spot by the quotes, why don't they just retort with the quotes from the Fathers that support their view?
Let's hear the quotes from the Fathers that support sola Scriptura or the monarch of a country being the head of the Church rather than the successor of Peter or that the Eucharist is only symbolic or that women may be ordained or any other number of Protestant positions or beliefs.
Vic, the reason we don't extend the virtues of Mary to St Anne is because St Anne was not immaculately conceived in her mother's womb by a special intervention of God.
Any other questions?
If anyone wants to see how Catholic/Protestant dialog should not be done, see Triablogue's latest post on the Eucharist. I normally wouldn't rise to that kind of bait, but I really felt this required a response.
(Father if you think this falls into the category of getting into a pissing contest with a skunk, don't publish. You may be right.)
Post a Comment