Catholics are often blamed by Evangelical Christians for being 'pagan'. What they mean by this is that they believe, once the Catholic faith became the state religion in 315 AD that it then simply picked up it's religion from the surrounding pagan culture and therefore Catholicism is pagan.
There are lots of examples: Christmas is supposedly a pagan mid winter celebration that was taken up by the early Christians. So was Easter. The Marian dogmas are an import from the pagan goddess religions, and the Eucharist from Mithraism. This theory isn't limited to Catholic doctrines. Customs and clothes are all part of it too. So the Bishop's miter is an import from the worship of Dagon the fish god. (when you look at the miter sideways it looks like the bishop has an open mouthed fish on his head...) Incense and candles--they're in import from paganism. So is the idea of priests and sacrifice and altars and all that stuff. Statues in churches? Pure pagan idol worship. The cross itself? The ancient 'tau' symbol from Egypt. Praying to saints and masses for the dead? Pagan ancestor worship. You name it, if it's Catholic, according to the Evangelicals, it's been imported from paganism.
Of course, the problem with this method of attack is that most everything the Evangelical wants to retain from historic Christianity also has antecedents in pagan religion. The idea of an incarnate god? Runs right through Hinduism and other pagan religions. A Trinitarian god? Check out the Hindu 'Trinity'. A Virgin birth? It's all over in paganism. A resurrected hero? Pagan myth abounds in such ideas. A tradition of inspired prophets who preach and write books? Loads of pagan religions have them. Worship on Sunday? Pagan worship of the Sun God.
So the Evangelical must think things through at a bit more depth. He can't have it both ways. If supposedly pagan elements are to be purged from Christianity, then they must all go. He can't get rid of Marian dogmas because he thinks they're pagan, but keep the incarnation. He can't get rid of priests and sacrifices and incense but attempt to keep the Holy Trinity. He can't jettison prayers for the dead, but keep the Virgin Birth.
In fact, the whole 'Catholicism is pagan' attack must undermine every aspect of historic Christianity, and it is a favorite attack of the new atheists. They see the links with paganism and dismiss the whole of Christianity with the same 'it's all re-branded paganism' that the anti-Catholics use. Evangelicals should be careful of the anti-Catholic arguments they use for they will have to abandon an awful lot of their own cherished beliefs as 'pagan in origin' too.
In fact there is another, more sensible way. This argument is not new. C.S.Lewis was an expert in classical languages and culture. He understood very well that the pagan religions had connections with Christianity. He said it didn't worry him. What would really worry him is if Christianity did not have any connections with paganism. He understood that the pagan religions (like Judaism, but in a different way) were fore runners of Christ. They were pointers to the greater truths of the Christian faith. The pagan religions and myths were all true, he said, but in Christ they really happened. This is the Catholic view. Paganism (with all its horrors as well as all its glories) points to the truth of the incarnation and the pagan philosophies and myths and religious practices point forward to their fulfillment in Christ and their fullest fulfillment in the Catholic faith.
Why this should come as a surprise to Christians who pride themselves on their Biblical scholarship is beyond me. Do they not realize that the Apostle John himself, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit used terminology from pagan philosophy to explain the incarnation? The 'logos' was a Greek philosophical term for the 'creative power of God'. When John wrote, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth." He was borrowing from paganism. Shock horror! He's not the only one. St Paul speaks constantly in his epistles of 'the mystery' that was hidden from the beginning of time and is now made manifest. He is borrowing concepts and ideas from Gnosticism and the other pagan mystery religions which were all about mystery and secret knowledge. This was not because he thought Gnosticism was true, but because he was using concepts and religious terminology familiar to those he wanted to evangelize.
Both of the Apostles use pagan ideas and transform them into Christian theology. This became a time tested method of Evangelization. The early Christian missionaries discovered connecting points within the culture they were evangelizing and so helped the people to understand the light of Christ. Furthermore, Evangelical missionaries today do the same thing. They are instructed when going in to primitive tribes, to find connecting points within that tribe's culture with which to explain the gospel.
That Catholicism in its fullness has always does the same helps to authenticate the Catholic faith--not invalidate it.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Monastic Churches - 9
(Click to enlarge)
Buckfast Abbey in Devon, England was built on the site of a medieval abbey which was ravaged by the Henrician revolution. It was re-built by Benedictine monks in the beginning of the twentieth century. You can visit Buckfast's website and take a virtual tour here.
Immaculate Conception
In the happy debates between Protestants and Catholics, we Catholics are often charged with holding to un-Biblical beliefs, then when we give the Biblical support for those beliefs we are charged with 'twisting Scripture'; 'taking Scripture out of context'' or the Protestant simply says (on no authority other than the 'proof text' displeases him) but "But that's not what that passage means."
Here's an example: Protestant says, "You Catholics hold to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but it's totally un-Biblical." So we refer them the story of the annunciation where Mary is greeted with the term 'full of grace'. (Luke 1.28) We conclude that if she was 'full of grace' then she had no sin for the Biblical definition of sin is to "fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23) If she was "full of grace" then we only have to ask when this fullness started and we conclude logically that it must have started when her life started, and life starts at conception so she must have been conceived without sin. We refer to Genesis 3:15 where God says that as a woman has given in to Satan, so a woman will trample the head of Satan, and we refer to Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and teh other Fathers who refer very early on to the Blessed Virgin as 'the second Eve' and conclude that as the first Eve was created perfect, so was the second. Now, we are happy to admit that this does not amount to Jesus Christ himself saying to his apostles, "My mother was conceived without sin and thou shalt believe this and teach it until I come again in glory." We also admit that the doctrine (while implicit in Scripture) was not defined formally until fairly late. That's okay. We believe in the possibility of the development of Doctrine, and we have theologians who help us define how and when that happens validly.
Compare this however, with the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura which has no Biblical proof texts, no evidence from the early Church fathers, and was invented by the sixteenth century reformers and is held to by all their followers as a foundation tenet of their belief system, and this from people who deny that doctrine develops, believe every doctrine must originate in the primitive Church, and say "If it's not in the Bible you're not to believe it." The same applies to the Protestant bedrock doctrine of sola Fide or faith alone. The only reference to faith alone in the Bible is James 2:24 where such a concept is formally repudiated.
Without any agreed interpretative authority the Bible means whatever people decide it means. Here are a few other 'Biblical interpretations' I've heard over the years. I have deliberately chosen a range of Protestant traditions so the conservative Evangelicals can't say, "Yes, but those are the kooky liberal Anglicans." and the Anglicans can't say, "Yes but those are the kooky American fundamentalists."
First--one of my favorites--the snake handlers. They interpret Mark 16:18 literally and so they pass around rattlesnakes and vipers at their worship services and they drink poison to see if they will survive. We know Christians who insist that their women cannot wear trousers because of a verse in the Old Testament and Seventh Day Adventists who only worship on Saturday because they don't find Sunday worship in the Bible. Lest people think I am only giving radical, way out and insane examples, we have to include the vast majority of Evangelical Christians who take the whole package of late-invented dispensationalist 'end days' Biblical interpretations with the utmost seriousness.
Then there was the Anglican vicar who counseled a friend of mine to have an abortion because Jesus says, "Let the little children come unto me and forbid them not." There's the female Baptist minister who admitted that her abortion was killing but quoted the Old Testament idea of sacrifice and one person laying down a life for the good of another. Another Anglican friend explained quite sincerely how homosexuality was okay because Jonathan and David loved one another and John was the disciple Jesus loved. The incident when Peter had a dream of unclean beasts and was told to 'kill and eat' has been used to convince people that the otherwise forbidden innovation of women priests was okay after all, and the 'youth who ran away naked' from the garden of Gethsemane has been used to support Christian naturism.
I understand how non-Catholics may not see or accept the Biblical basis for Catholic beliefs, but what I don't get is how they miss the lack of Biblical support for some of their foundational beliefs and the amazingly weird Biblical interpretations some in their own ranks hold to with utmost sincerity.
Here's an example: Protestant says, "You Catholics hold to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but it's totally un-Biblical." So we refer them the story of the annunciation where Mary is greeted with the term 'full of grace'. (Luke 1.28) We conclude that if she was 'full of grace' then she had no sin for the Biblical definition of sin is to "fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23) If she was "full of grace" then we only have to ask when this fullness started and we conclude logically that it must have started when her life started, and life starts at conception so she must have been conceived without sin. We refer to Genesis 3:15 where God says that as a woman has given in to Satan, so a woman will trample the head of Satan, and we refer to Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and teh other Fathers who refer very early on to the Blessed Virgin as 'the second Eve' and conclude that as the first Eve was created perfect, so was the second. Now, we are happy to admit that this does not amount to Jesus Christ himself saying to his apostles, "My mother was conceived without sin and thou shalt believe this and teach it until I come again in glory." We also admit that the doctrine (while implicit in Scripture) was not defined formally until fairly late. That's okay. We believe in the possibility of the development of Doctrine, and we have theologians who help us define how and when that happens validly.
Compare this however, with the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura which has no Biblical proof texts, no evidence from the early Church fathers, and was invented by the sixteenth century reformers and is held to by all their followers as a foundation tenet of their belief system, and this from people who deny that doctrine develops, believe every doctrine must originate in the primitive Church, and say "If it's not in the Bible you're not to believe it." The same applies to the Protestant bedrock doctrine of sola Fide or faith alone. The only reference to faith alone in the Bible is James 2:24 where such a concept is formally repudiated.
Without any agreed interpretative authority the Bible means whatever people decide it means. Here are a few other 'Biblical interpretations' I've heard over the years. I have deliberately chosen a range of Protestant traditions so the conservative Evangelicals can't say, "Yes, but those are the kooky liberal Anglicans." and the Anglicans can't say, "Yes but those are the kooky American fundamentalists."
First--one of my favorites--the snake handlers. They interpret Mark 16:18 literally and so they pass around rattlesnakes and vipers at their worship services and they drink poison to see if they will survive. We know Christians who insist that their women cannot wear trousers because of a verse in the Old Testament and Seventh Day Adventists who only worship on Saturday because they don't find Sunday worship in the Bible. Lest people think I am only giving radical, way out and insane examples, we have to include the vast majority of Evangelical Christians who take the whole package of late-invented dispensationalist 'end days' Biblical interpretations with the utmost seriousness.
Then there was the Anglican vicar who counseled a friend of mine to have an abortion because Jesus says, "Let the little children come unto me and forbid them not." There's the female Baptist minister who admitted that her abortion was killing but quoted the Old Testament idea of sacrifice and one person laying down a life for the good of another. Another Anglican friend explained quite sincerely how homosexuality was okay because Jonathan and David loved one another and John was the disciple Jesus loved. The incident when Peter had a dream of unclean beasts and was told to 'kill and eat' has been used to convince people that the otherwise forbidden innovation of women priests was okay after all, and the 'youth who ran away naked' from the garden of Gethsemane has been used to support Christian naturism.
I understand how non-Catholics may not see or accept the Biblical basis for Catholic beliefs, but what I don't get is how they miss the lack of Biblical support for some of their foundational beliefs and the amazingly weird Biblical interpretations some in their own ranks hold to with utmost sincerity.
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Proof Texts
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.
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.
Friday, December 03, 2010
Certainty and Uncertainty
Does one become a Catholic because one 'longs for certainty' and is 'uncomfortable with ambiguity'? This is the charge often leveled at Catholics from the liberal Protestant wing.
Certainly there are some people who cling to Catholicism because if offers them 'certainty'. They love dogma and legalism because it makes them feel secure. But then again, I can think of plenty of Protestants who also cling to 'certainty' and 'moral absolutes' in an unhealthy way. Likewise, there are liberal types who follow the way of no dogma and no moral absolutes out of another kind of weakness.
Let us put all of them on one side--both the legalistic addicts to 'certainty' and the libertines who are equally comfortable with no dogma and moral strictures.
Instead what is the real relationship between certainty and uncertainty? Perhaps a little parable will do. There was a boy who liked to lay on the hillside at night and gaze at the stars and dream of being an astronaut. "If only" he thought, "I could one day fly up to the stars and dwell in those vast regions of beyond!" He dreamed of being an astronaut, but he never took the step. He resisted the discipline and daring that was required to be an astronaut. So he remained on earth and gazed at the stars and wrote beautiful science fiction stories about other worlds and star travelers and he wrote poems of great beauty about the gem like stars and the dark, unknown mysterious realms beyond his earth.
Then there was a second boy who also dreamed of being an astronaut. He worked hard at school and learned everything he could about physics and astronomy and rocketry and aeronautics. He worked hard and got a scholarship into the Air Force Academy and trained as a fighter pilot. He beat out all the competition and rose to the top of his class because he knew that only the very brightest and best were chosen as astronauts. Finally he was chosen, and then the real training began. He had to study even more technology and astrophysics. He had to be physically fit. He had to sacrifice much to fulfill his dream of being an astronaut. He struggled with hard realities. He learned how all the practical things ad difficult things and seemingly irrelevant things he had learned would help him ascend to the stars.
Finally the second boy sat in the rocket module and was launched into the great beyond. Off he flew into the dark, mysterious realms beyond all imagination.
This is it: the 'certainty' the dogma and the moral certitudes are not an end in themselves. They are a means to an end. They are the hard facts and rules and certainties that are in place to help us ascend to the stars. We need them not as the climb, but as the ladder we climb on. The certainties, if you like, are only there to launch us, like the rocket, into the uncertainties that are the dark and dazzling mystery of God. This is the true reason why Catholics need certainties--because they provide the map for the journey and the machine by which we fly.
Without them we remain on earth dreaming about the vast realms beyond and perhaps making up beautiful stories about it and maybe even flapping our arms like wings, but much more than that, without the certain certainties we cannot do.
Certainly there are some people who cling to Catholicism because if offers them 'certainty'. They love dogma and legalism because it makes them feel secure. But then again, I can think of plenty of Protestants who also cling to 'certainty' and 'moral absolutes' in an unhealthy way. Likewise, there are liberal types who follow the way of no dogma and no moral absolutes out of another kind of weakness.
Let us put all of them on one side--both the legalistic addicts to 'certainty' and the libertines who are equally comfortable with no dogma and moral strictures.
Instead what is the real relationship between certainty and uncertainty? Perhaps a little parable will do. There was a boy who liked to lay on the hillside at night and gaze at the stars and dream of being an astronaut. "If only" he thought, "I could one day fly up to the stars and dwell in those vast regions of beyond!" He dreamed of being an astronaut, but he never took the step. He resisted the discipline and daring that was required to be an astronaut. So he remained on earth and gazed at the stars and wrote beautiful science fiction stories about other worlds and star travelers and he wrote poems of great beauty about the gem like stars and the dark, unknown mysterious realms beyond his earth.
Then there was a second boy who also dreamed of being an astronaut. He worked hard at school and learned everything he could about physics and astronomy and rocketry and aeronautics. He worked hard and got a scholarship into the Air Force Academy and trained as a fighter pilot. He beat out all the competition and rose to the top of his class because he knew that only the very brightest and best were chosen as astronauts. Finally he was chosen, and then the real training began. He had to study even more technology and astrophysics. He had to be physically fit. He had to sacrifice much to fulfill his dream of being an astronaut. He struggled with hard realities. He learned how all the practical things ad difficult things and seemingly irrelevant things he had learned would help him ascend to the stars.
Finally the second boy sat in the rocket module and was launched into the great beyond. Off he flew into the dark, mysterious realms beyond all imagination.
This is it: the 'certainty' the dogma and the moral certitudes are not an end in themselves. They are a means to an end. They are the hard facts and rules and certainties that are in place to help us ascend to the stars. We need them not as the climb, but as the ladder we climb on. The certainties, if you like, are only there to launch us, like the rocket, into the uncertainties that are the dark and dazzling mystery of God. This is the true reason why Catholics need certainties--because they provide the map for the journey and the machine by which we fly.
Without them we remain on earth dreaming about the vast realms beyond and perhaps making up beautiful stories about it and maybe even flapping our arms like wings, but much more than that, without the certain certainties we cannot do.
Church Fathers
We have a fellow named John in the combox who used to be a Catholic, but is now an Evangelical Anglican because he has decided that Catholic doctrines contradict Scripture and because the Evangelical Anglican position is closer to the position of the Church fathers.
That John wants his faith to agree with the Apostolic Fathers is certainly admirable, so I thought it might be fun for readers to contribute their favorite quotes from the Church Fathers for John to agree with. Any submissions from the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Here's mine.
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" -- Irenaeus - Against the Heresies
That John wants his faith to agree with the Apostolic Fathers is certainly admirable, so I thought it might be fun for readers to contribute their favorite quotes from the Church Fathers for John to agree with. Any submissions from the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Here's mine.
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" -- Irenaeus - Against the Heresies
This Year's Boy Bishop
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Clear and Simple Scripture?
Protestants love to tell us how their religion is based on the 'clear and simple reading of the Bible.' "Oh yes!" they exclaim, "We just opened up the Bible and read what it said and suddenly it became clear that the Catholic Church was wrong and Evangelical Christianity was right!" Hogwash. They listened to someone who interpreted the Bible and told them what they thought it meant. In fact, they listened to people who regularly mis quote the Bible, take verses out of context, ignore uncomfortable passages and come up with the most amazingly convoluted explanations for texts that do not agree with their theology.
Here are two examples. I could give many more. The first is from St John's gospel chapter three, v.5-- Jesus says to Nicodemus, "Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit he cannot see the kingdom of God." Within the whole chapter we see that Jesus is speaking of being born again, and to affirm that he is teaching the necessity of baptism, immediately after this conversation we see Jesus out baptizing with his disciples. From the beginning the church fathers understood 'born of water and the Spirit' to refer to baptism. There is no deviation from such an obvious and clear interpretation. Nevertheless, along come the Evangelical Christians some 1900 years later and say, "What this verse really refers to is the amniotic fluid--the 'waters breaking' when a child is born. Therefore the 'water' reference does not mean baptism. It just means physical birth. This from people who claim that they only wish to read the simple, clear and honest meaning of Scripture...not to mention the fact that these are folks who blame the Catholic Church for following late, man made and falsely imagined doctrines. So go figure.
The second example is from John chapter 6 in which Jesus says "Unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood he does not have life within him." From the earliest days in the church this was always understood in the simplest and most straightforward manner. It was linked with Jesus' words at the Last Supper when he took bread blessed it, said, This is my Body" and gave it to them. The early church fathers all taught that the Eucharistic Bread really was the Body of Christ, and that it was his flesh which he said we must eat if we would have life. Well, along come the Evangelical Protestants, who always take the plain words of Scripture and (of course) never follow the interpretations of theologians and they read these words and say, "He didn't really mean that we had to eat his flesh. He meant that spiritually we have to take him within ourselves and get saved."
These are only two examples. The same thing could be multiplied for Anglicans, Methodists or any other type of Protestant. All of them read the Scripture through a lens. They all rely on a theological tradition and a theological bias which helps them filter, interpret and analyze Scripture. My point is that there is nothing wrong with this. What's wrong is that they pretend that they don't have this theological bias and a denominational filter in place.
Where Catholicism differs is that we admit that an interpretative authority is necessary, and we affirm and celebrate that interpretative authority. The authority is the Church which Christ founded. The same Church from which and into which the Scriptures were inspired in the first place, the same Church in which the Epistles of the Apostles were read to the first Christians, the same Church which struggled to define the New Testament canon. The same Church that loved and taught and preached the Scriptures from the beginning. Catholics see that the Bible is the record of the life of the Body of Christ, and that it cannot be interpreted and lived fully unless it is done within and through the fullness of the Church.
Somewhere G.K.Chesterton wrote about the absurdity of the Sola Scriptura position. Imagine, he said, that there was a great and marvelous procession with a king and judges and lords and ladies and soldiers triumphant home from war. Imagine that this great procession was decked with finery, great works of art were carried in procession. Heroes and heroines of all the ages were there, and this great and glorious procession was accompanied by music and marching and men on horseback and ladies in carriages and in the midst of this procession the great book of wisdom was carried in procession too. This book contained all the wisdom and thought and history of this great people and so it was venerated and indeed was inspired by their God and formed the foundation of their noble and fine religion.
Sola Scriptura is like taking the book and destroying everything else and saying everything is in the book and nothing else matters.
Here are two examples. I could give many more. The first is from St John's gospel chapter three, v.5-- Jesus says to Nicodemus, "Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit he cannot see the kingdom of God." Within the whole chapter we see that Jesus is speaking of being born again, and to affirm that he is teaching the necessity of baptism, immediately after this conversation we see Jesus out baptizing with his disciples. From the beginning the church fathers understood 'born of water and the Spirit' to refer to baptism. There is no deviation from such an obvious and clear interpretation. Nevertheless, along come the Evangelical Christians some 1900 years later and say, "What this verse really refers to is the amniotic fluid--the 'waters breaking' when a child is born. Therefore the 'water' reference does not mean baptism. It just means physical birth. This from people who claim that they only wish to read the simple, clear and honest meaning of Scripture...not to mention the fact that these are folks who blame the Catholic Church for following late, man made and falsely imagined doctrines. So go figure.
The second example is from John chapter 6 in which Jesus says "Unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood he does not have life within him." From the earliest days in the church this was always understood in the simplest and most straightforward manner. It was linked with Jesus' words at the Last Supper when he took bread blessed it, said, This is my Body" and gave it to them. The early church fathers all taught that the Eucharistic Bread really was the Body of Christ, and that it was his flesh which he said we must eat if we would have life. Well, along come the Evangelical Protestants, who always take the plain words of Scripture and (of course) never follow the interpretations of theologians and they read these words and say, "He didn't really mean that we had to eat his flesh. He meant that spiritually we have to take him within ourselves and get saved."
These are only two examples. The same thing could be multiplied for Anglicans, Methodists or any other type of Protestant. All of them read the Scripture through a lens. They all rely on a theological tradition and a theological bias which helps them filter, interpret and analyze Scripture. My point is that there is nothing wrong with this. What's wrong is that they pretend that they don't have this theological bias and a denominational filter in place.
Where Catholicism differs is that we admit that an interpretative authority is necessary, and we affirm and celebrate that interpretative authority. The authority is the Church which Christ founded. The same Church from which and into which the Scriptures were inspired in the first place, the same Church in which the Epistles of the Apostles were read to the first Christians, the same Church which struggled to define the New Testament canon. The same Church that loved and taught and preached the Scriptures from the beginning. Catholics see that the Bible is the record of the life of the Body of Christ, and that it cannot be interpreted and lived fully unless it is done within and through the fullness of the Church.
Somewhere G.K.Chesterton wrote about the absurdity of the Sola Scriptura position. Imagine, he said, that there was a great and marvelous procession with a king and judges and lords and ladies and soldiers triumphant home from war. Imagine that this great procession was decked with finery, great works of art were carried in procession. Heroes and heroines of all the ages were there, and this great and glorious procession was accompanied by music and marching and men on horseback and ladies in carriages and in the midst of this procession the great book of wisdom was carried in procession too. This book contained all the wisdom and thought and history of this great people and so it was venerated and indeed was inspired by their God and formed the foundation of their noble and fine religion.
Sola Scriptura is like taking the book and destroying everything else and saying everything is in the book and nothing else matters.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Bitter? Yes..a pint please
So, for the record, and from the SOMH Archives, here's what I love about England:
Walking the South Downs Way with a black labrador. The Long Man of Wilmington. Visiting castles. Fawlty Towers. The North Cornwall Coastal path. Sausages. Mustard. Sticky Toffee Pudding. Custard. Flemish paintings in the National Gallery. Staying in farmhouse Bed and Breakfasts and eating lunch in country pubs. Little St Mary's, Cambridge. A pint of English bitter. Dad's Army. Really good fish and chips. Rievaulx Abbey. Choral Evensong at New College, Oxford. The River Thames. WH SMith. Westminster Cathedral. Christmas Cake, crackers, pudding and carols. St Ethedreda's, Ely Place. Canals and canalboats. The Church of St Mary and St Alphege, Bath. Roast potatoes. Downside Abbey. those gas water heaters they have over their bathtubs that sound like engines on airplanes. Glastonbury. Tea with old ladies. Brown Sauce. Squash (the game, not the drink) Anglo-Catholic Churches. Medium Dry Sherry. The Isle of Wight. Lawn Tennis. Tintern Abbey. The Bird and Baby, the Perch, the Turf and the Trout all in Oxford. St Mary Magdalene's, Oxford. Old Libraries. Pusey House. Jaffa Cakes. Mesopotamia. North Oxford. Private Eye. Yaverland. BBC Radio 4. The Belles of St Trinian's. Denis Thatcher. Christmas pantos. King's College, Cambridge. Stonehenge. Charity shops. The Daily Telegraph. Gin and Tonic. pre-1985 Anglican vicars, Strawberries and cream. The Royle Family. Newman's Rooms at the Birmingham Oratory. St Aloysius, Oxford. Croquet. Little Gidding. Hastings Sea front. East Coker. Blackpool. Quarr Abbey.
And what do I love about the English themselves? Tweed jackets and trousers that are too long. The suicidal tendencies of their old ladies on bicycles. That their lawyers wear wigs. The Queen's squeaky voice. Public schoolboys in uniform. Their stiff upper lip. The blitz spirit. English barmy sense of humor. Their patience in queues. Their ability to sit on your lap on a crowded train and pretend nothing is wrong. Their women are frumpy. The way the men wear white button down dress shirts for sports. The way they ignore the Welsh. The ridiculousness of the Church of England. Their reluctance to enter the twentieth century. Their attachment to the 'airing cupboard.' Their fondness for mystery stories. Their appreciation for gardening. That they like to hike wearing shorts, sturdy shoes and a hat. That they maintain the footpaths. That they complain a lot. That their national game takes four days, and no one can explain what's going on. That they treat language like a poem. That they like trains. They like a bargain. That they are suspicious of religious enthusiasm. That their greatest national heroes are losers.
And which of the English do I love best? C.S.Lewis, J.R.R.Tolkien, Evelyn Waugh, T.S.Eliot, Edith Sitwell, Jane Austen, Barbara Pym, Alec Guiness, Jeremy Irons, Margaret Thatcher, Charles I, St Thomas More, George Herbert, St Etheldreda, John Donne, Richard Crashaw, Philip Larkin, Elizabeth Jennings, St Richard of Chichester, the Venerable Bede, St Cuthbert Mayne, Julian of Norwich, Dorothy Sayers, J.M.W.Turner, Henry VI, Samuel Palmer, the Wesleys, Cardinal Newman, William Blake, Christopher Smart, Emma Thompson, John Cleese, Edward Elgar, St Nicholas Owen, Tallis, Ronnie Knox, Byrd, John Betjeman, Judy Dench, Brian Blessed, Maggie Smith, Hugh Laurie, Les Dawson, G.K.Chesterton, Francis Kilvert, Parson Woodeforde, Hilaire Belloc...
...oh, and my wife.
The Magic Circle
From time to time I am asked why, for ten years, living in England as a Catholic convert and applying for ordination, I was not ordained as a Catholic priest.
This article should help people understand the situation. The facts are simple: some of the Bishops wanted priests, but not priests like me. Others didn't want priests at all.
Yes, you heard it correctly. They didn't want more priests. Let me tell you about this shocking view. I got is straight from the horses mouth because when I was working as a charity representative in England for seven years I was in a different Catholic rectory every weekend listening to priests at ground level speaking about their diocese, their bishop and the circle appointed monsignori in their dioceses.
Here is what they thought--and I am quoting a high ranking Catholic diocesan offical who was sharing his bishop's views. He said, "In fact, we have too many priests. Compared to placed like Peru or Africa, we have plenty of priests. The people are still used to the old 'one parish-one priest' model. When we have fewer priests they will have to get used to genuinely owning the church for the first time. We would like to have a half dozen priests or so for each deanery. They will live together in community in a central place and the parishes will be run by lay people, served by the local college of deanery priests."
Of course, all of this is driven by another agenda. See, if Rome doesn't allow us to have women priests we'll have very few priests. This crisis will be one which we will engineer. The result of having fewer priests will be parishes led by lay people. This really means 'lay women'. By pioneering this new model of priesthood and parish the magic circle in England will have parishes run by women even though Rome does not allow them to have women priests.
This was shared with me with some enthusiasm in not one, but three of the Southern dioceses in England. Anyone who knows the English Church will be able to identify the three Southern Dioceses to which I am referring and I doubt if anyone will refute this proposed 'new model' of priesthood in England.
This article should help people understand the situation. The facts are simple: some of the Bishops wanted priests, but not priests like me. Others didn't want priests at all.
Yes, you heard it correctly. They didn't want more priests. Let me tell you about this shocking view. I got is straight from the horses mouth because when I was working as a charity representative in England for seven years I was in a different Catholic rectory every weekend listening to priests at ground level speaking about their diocese, their bishop and the circle appointed monsignori in their dioceses.
Here is what they thought--and I am quoting a high ranking Catholic diocesan offical who was sharing his bishop's views. He said, "In fact, we have too many priests. Compared to placed like Peru or Africa, we have plenty of priests. The people are still used to the old 'one parish-one priest' model. When we have fewer priests they will have to get used to genuinely owning the church for the first time. We would like to have a half dozen priests or so for each deanery. They will live together in community in a central place and the parishes will be run by lay people, served by the local college of deanery priests."
Of course, all of this is driven by another agenda. See, if Rome doesn't allow us to have women priests we'll have very few priests. This crisis will be one which we will engineer. The result of having fewer priests will be parishes led by lay people. This really means 'lay women'. By pioneering this new model of priesthood and parish the magic circle in England will have parishes run by women even though Rome does not allow them to have women priests.
This was shared with me with some enthusiasm in not one, but three of the Southern dioceses in England. Anyone who knows the English Church will be able to identify the three Southern Dioceses to which I am referring and I doubt if anyone will refute this proposed 'new model' of priesthood in England.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
