Do you feel a bit of tension between your "isolationist" instincts and membership in a universal Church, and between your "minimal government" instincts and membership in a hierarchical Church -- that is, assuming that these instincts are general feelings?...asks a reader in the combox.
This is a very interesting question, and one which reminds me what a joy it is to be a Catholic. I feel sure that it is a universal instinct in the human heart to desire two contradictory things. On the one hand we long to belong. We long to fit in with 'the system' and have our place in the 'inner circle'. There is something in the human heart which wants to be part of the gang, the club, the group, the elite, the 'in' group.
On the other hand, like Groucho Marx, we wouldn't want to belong to any club who would have us as a member. We want to be subversive. We want to be isolationist and give a digital salute to the 'insiders' and the 'elite'. There is something in us which wants to be a monk, an Amish farmer, an anti-establishment pure sort of soul who 'marches to a different drummer', ploughs our own furrow and wears the white plume of our own noble way in the world--never compromising our values for a place at high table, and never selling our birthright for a mess of pottage.
In spiritual terms we want to be both Benedictines and Franciscans. The Benedictines--who are so part of the establishment--so quiet and balanced and calm and integrated and scholarly and un-radical. But we also want to be wild and crazy and prophetic and do something radical for God like grow a long beard and live in holy poverty and preach to the sultan and the birds and have stigmata and stand barefoot in the snow.
The brilliance, therefore in being a Catholic is that you can have it all. When you join the Catholic Church you belong to the greatest, oldest and most venerable of all establishments. I mean to say, here is a worldwide, organized, institution that has been around since the Roman Empire. Here you belong to the establishment of establishments. You fit into the club. You belong to the gang. You fit into the family. You're part of a hierarchy for goodness sake, and what can be more established and solid and permanent and 'respectable' than that? As a Catholic you belong to the great, big, old one. You're not alone. You're a part of the great army, the kingdom of God.
But at the same time you belong to the most subversive, maddening, crazy and unpredictable group the world has ever seen. If you are a faithful Catholic you belong to the group of radicals who undermine the ways of this world and are always at odds with the power struggles, the greed, the violence, the lust of this world. You stand firm for justice in the face of cruelty and greed. You stand for purity in a world of lust and for weakness in the world of power. You will die a martyr in the face of a cruel tyrant with all his armies of the establishment arrayed against you. You will stand with the prophets and radicals and rebels of the world as a proud Catholic--refusing to submit to the idiocy, violence, and mindless mendacity of the powers of hell which are made manifest in the establishments of this world.
So as a Catholic you belong, but you don't belong. You are in the club, but it is a club of rebels. You belong to the family of subversives and the coterie of prophets. You are one of the elite band of John the Baptists who are a voice crying in the wilderness.
Isolation and Individualism in the Catholic Church are counted by Inclusion and Co-inherence. In the Church all things hold together. There all the opposites unite and complement one another but never contradict. This is where all things are affirmed and nothing good is denied. Here you can be the member of an institution and be a joyful individualist at the same time.
This is something dappled and glory be to God for dappled things.
i sometimes have a difficult time understanding what Fr. Longencker is talking about in these blogs, i guess because he is far more educated then me else having a degree in English? i don't think of myself as an isolationist i am far from that more like suffering with MS and have a hard time moving of course too with MS it is well known it can cause cognitive problems.
ReplyDeletei am still going to attend school next year. i think i understand your article though. nicely done.
walter,
ReplyDeleteI think I can explain it to you. One thing that I noticed a while ago what that all the diversity that exists in the Protestant world, everything from Amish to the Pentecostals, exists in the Catholic Church. The main difference is that in the Catholic Church bottles up what exists in over 30000 different Protestant denominations.
So it's clear that somehow these two opposites of individualism and institutionalism are kept in balance. Such tension should have exploded a few centuries after it started, but instead it held together longer than any human institution that has ever existed. It really is the best of both worlds.
If you keep up writing like this about that crazy old institution you call home I might succomb to its idiosyncracies myself...though it seems crazy to have to bow to an infallable office (the pope) whose infallability is less than 200 years old and to have to put up with all that crazy Mary Queen of Heaven stuff and that she was born without original sin and had no Biblical relation with Joseph (just beacause Augustine thought that it was handed down through the generations by sex). Granted, we protestants have a wide range of crazy but we can choose not to believe in them all. Do you really believe everything the Catholic Church teaches and holds true?
ReplyDeleteAndreas, some things to consider. Calvin, Luther, Welsey, and even Zwingli, believed Mary was a perpetual virgin. Place yourself in Joseph's position. If believed that God overshadowed your fiance and gave here a baby, how comfortable would you feel about having Biblical relations with your fiance? Remember, Joseph was a Biblical Jew, and Jews were very cautious about the things of God, not wanting to go too close to "the Holy of Holies" and not wanting to even name God directly. The reason our generation has trouble believing in perpetual virgin even though the early reformers didn't, is our generation has made Sex a God that we must all bow down to. Read, for instance what the early reformers (and even reformers until the early 1900s) had to say about contraception.
ReplyDeleteWRT the Queen of Heaven, remember Jesus gave Mary to St. John at his crucifixion. St. John should know her more than anyone else. Now skip forward to John's last book Revelations, in particular Revelations 11:19 and Revelations 12 (remember the original Bible had no chapters and versus so the whole thing flowed together). In Revelations 11:19, the Ark of the Covenant appears. Considering how important the Ark was to Biblical Judaism, this line would get their attention and they would want to know more. So what does St John say about the Ark? Revelations 12:1 states, it is "a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head". That makes no sense until you read Revelations 12:2 which states that this woman is pregnant....then it becomes clear. The Holy Ark was a vessel that contained God. While pregnant, Mary was literally the new Ark of the Covenant. Considering that anyone who touched the Ark of the Covenant unworthily in the Old Testament instantly died, that fact does have implications on Mary and Revelations 12:1 hints at it. The unique relationship of being Mother of God, Child of God (as we all are), and Husband of God (through the Holy Spirit) also has implications.
As a side not, you might want to look at Islam, which is really a Christian Heresy. Muslim tradition records a hadith, which states that the only children born without the "touch of Satan" were Mary and Jesus. Since Islam was founded in the 600s AD, early beliefs about the sinlessness of both Mary and Jesus are easily confirmable. You don't even need to go do historical texts, talk to a Muslim. Despite being a Christian Heresy, they are a witness since Muslims have a strong hatred of associating anything with God. So being sinless does not mean what you think it means. It simply means, that Mary is the "New Eve" who was also sinless before she made the choice to sin. If you believe Eve existed, you won't have a problem with Mary existing as the Catholic Church understands her.
WRT the infallible Pope, there's an easy answer. Look at sports. There are often disputes between the players, but there is always a referee or umpire to settle things. The referee or umpire are infallible voices WRT the game. When the referee or umpire speaks, the decision must be treated as fact, even if you disagree with it. Now there is more to the Pope than this, but if you understand this fact, you've gone a long way to understanding Catholicism.
Ponder these statements and do your own research.
@Anil Wang-thank you for your comments and response to my comment. Though there is little way for you to know my resarch of the Catholic church I would prefer if you wouln't assume that I have done little to no research. Don't assume when you don't know. I may have studied the Catholic faith more in-depth than you, then again maybe not.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it is interesting but absolutely not compelling that the reformers thought that Mary was a perpetual virgin (if indeed you are correct in that). For a protestant, the answer to those reformers is a sound "so what!". They hold no authority for a Protestant, and are wrong in this matter, according to Scripture. They were too steeped in Catholicis but how could they not have been?
As for your comments on Mary as Queen of Heaven per Revelation (not with an -s)...that is a stretch to say the least and to make such a grand theology/dogma from such a difficult passage makes little sense to me. Multiple understandings are equally valid here, from a hermaneutical point of view.
That Islam claims that Mary was not touched by Satan doesn't really make me jump onboard with the sinless thing. There is simply no Scriptural evidence that Mary was any different from the rest of us (saved honored by God to carry Jesus), certainly not sinlessness (which would have to include a virgin birth as well since Mary's parents surely weren't sinless themselves...were they?)
The sports analogy is not bad but it is not fully correct. It fails to see that in the case of the Church and the pope it would argue that one of the players made himself the referee. Now I know you will say that Jesus made Peter the referee and that the apostolic succession keeps this safe...but clearly there is another way of reading the scripture in that passage. Leader? Sure. As a Methodist pastor I am used to others have the interprative authority. But infallaible...no.
Some thoughts...
Andreas, I recommend my book Mary-A Catholic Evangelical Debate.
ReplyDeleteIn it I debate with a Protestant friend on all the items you mention.
Dear Fr. Longenecker,
ReplyDeleteThank for this wonderful post. We had the good pleasure of hearing you speak several years ago at a Coming Home Network Conference...and I could almost hear you deliver your post in your delightful style. There has not been much to make me smile lately, but you reminded me of this glorious family we have in the Church. Our son, Justin, was quite fond of your posts also. Justin was a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville in May 2008. He was pursuing his grad studies in South Dakota and was killed in a car accident last September 27, 2010. We miss him so much, I know he would have enjoyed your post as well. Thank you for taking the time to blog, I have started to write myself and am amazed at how much time it takes to post.
God Bless,
Terri
If the early reformers hold no authority for a Protestant, then the 5 solas might not be true, the new Protestant canon of scripture (which differ from both the Catholics, Orthodox, and Copts which separated near the time of the Council of Chalcedon) might also be fallible, the Protestant understanding of the Eucharist might also be fault, as is the Protestant understanding of Mary. If this is the case, the Jehovah's Witnesses may be right that there are some books that are missing from the Bible. Luther might have been right that some of the several books of the New Testament don't belong there. Extreme Pentecostals might be right that all you need is the Holy Spirit. Bart Erhman might be right that there were competing Christianities (with Catholicism winning out) and there are lost Gospels. Brian McLaren might be right that we can make Christianity whatever we want it to be. And Oprah might be right that Jesus was just another Buddha.
ReplyDeleteYou really end up with a mess and there is no non-arbitrary criteria to mediate one "system of Christianity" from another. For any system you come up with, an outsider can ask, why should I believe your system over someone else's system?
The early reformers knew this, which is why they constantly quoted the Church Fathers for their support. They reasoned that if the people who sat at the feet of the apostles and compiled the Bible went apostate, then Christianity has no foundations, and we might as all becomes Jews since we have no idea what Christ actually taught or even which letters that have survived are without corruption or even belong in the Bible at all. They just turned a blind eye on any early writing that disagreed with their pet theories.
When I looked into the issue of who to trust, I initially didn't give much weight to the Church Fathers. I reasoned that it's human nature to be lazy and only copy text that agreed with one's point of view, So un-Catholic texts simply went into decay while Catholic texts got preserved. Since acceptance of these texts were non-binding on Catholics, and most Catholics couldn't read them (either because of cost or because of ability), they held little value.
But then I looked into the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East. They separated from the Orthodox/Catholic Church at the Council of Chalcedon 451 and Council of Ephesus of 431 respectively and the hatred/persecutions between these Churches was enormous until recently. To me, this captured a snapshot of Christianity at about the time the Biblical canon firmed up. The Ethiopian Orthodox and Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (of India) also provided a reference point out of the reach of the Roman Empire. If these Christians believed something that agreed with the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches, it was likely part of early Christianity since logistically it's unlikely they communicated much. When they disagreed, either one or neither is right...more information is needed before making a judgment.
I was shocked to discover that these Churches believed in every doctrine of the Catholic Church and Early Church Fathers that I disagreed with (except their understanding of the Pope, which they see as merely a Patriarch). At the time, it was the linchpin that convinced me that the Orthodox Church was likely "the One True Church". I realized that these odd interpretations of the Bible which you balk at weren't interpretations. I had it backwards. Tradition merely means that which has been handed down, so the Bible is just a tradition that expresses and is consistent with the broader set of things that were handed down (i.e. traditions). Validation of that tradition came from many independent sources that spanned the entire world over many centuries. It was as simple and complicated as that.
Please have a look at these Churches and ponder these facts.
I'm so glad you reflected upon this question and shared your thoughts with us. I was wondering how you might answer; beautifully I might add. I myself am trying to understand and embrace the paradox of life. Glory be to God for all things counter,original, spare,strange; Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?) With swift,slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change: Praise Him.
ReplyDeleteAndreas,
ReplyDeleteA lot of things you bring up were found in the early church. It was always a church that formalized Christian doctrines.
It took 300 years for the trinity to be declared dogma enough though it was already believed.
It was only at the Council of Florence that the NT books was official declared canon, after much dispute and discussion.
This was a 100 years before the Reformation.
This makes Sola Scriptura simply an impossibility, since the Bible came from the church, not the other way around.
@Anil Wang-indeed, the Protestant problem is authority, i.e. who decides what is an accurate reading of Scripture. Personally, I try to go with the "Canon" of Vincent of Lerins to determine what is the correct faith. It is helpful.
ReplyDelete@Savia-since the Bible (NT) was written before 100 ad I don't see how this could mean that it came from the church as such. By the way, the NT Canon was settled much sooner than the 1400s. Athanasius in his Christmas letter wrote of the Canon as we know it and that was in the 4th century.
Andreas,
ReplyDeleteThere was already a church by 100 A.D.
Historians agree it was the Catholic Church that complied the Bible.
Professor Peter Flint, the non-Catholic scholar who translated the only English version of the Dead Sea Scrolls which won first prize from the Washington Biblical Archeology association:
"Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!"
I understand that you are skeptical over the authority issue.
I would encourage you to read John Henry Newman's essays on the development of Christian doctrine, in which he explains how the Catholic Church comes to these things.
Savvy
@Savia-the Bible preceeds the Church, though not the people who considered themselves carriers of the Gospel, i.e. the New Covenant. But to speak of a "Church" that could compile the Bible into a cohesive book is a little much. There was no need and no authority for a long time in the beginning of the era of the Spirit to undertake such a task.
ReplyDeleteFurther, there is no difference between The Roman, Protestant or Orthodox Bibles as far as the NT is concerned. The different books were considered "canonical" long before the Roman Catholic Church existed as such.
As far as being skeptical over the authority issue...I have good reasons to be, considering the low view of Scripture these days coupled with rampant "postmodern" revisions. However, there is simply no reason for the papal infallability to be neither valid or necessary. Only one is infallible and since the Pope is not a reincarnation of Jesus he is thus fallible, Vicar or not. This seemed like very rational for the Roman church for over 1700 years so why did it change?
@Anil Wang-I read your comment and appreciate your time and insights. However, to argue that the Bible is simply a collection of approved traditions is wrong, in my opinion. To write as you do:
"Tradition merely means that which has been handed down, so the Bible is just a tradition that expresses and is consistent with the broader set of things that were handed down (i.e. traditions)."
is a classic Catholicism defense. Tradition isn't infallible. The Church Fathers were not infallible. The Bible is infallible.
The Bible is the inspired word of God, written by people under the Spirit's guidance. Tradition is the understanding of said document in certain settings and environments.
I find tradition very helpful and useful but simply don't believe that it is infallible and needs to be followed as a rule. That would leave us with some pretty weird dogmas and teachings.
For instance, the book "Teachings of the Church Fathers" by Willis speaks very little of the whole Mary thing (actual quotes from church fathers). This seems to validate that particular doctrine's embellishments throughout history...and even if they would unianimously agree to all the current Mary stuff it would simply be a strong hint of its validity, not its validity itself...in my opinion.
Ï could be wrong.
Andreas,
ReplyDeleteHow would you know what books should be in the Bible, if the Bible does not tell you so?
"The different books were considered "canonical" long before the Roman Catholic Church existed as such. "
Considered canonical by whom?
Bishop Athanasius as not Protestant.
If the early church had Catholic beliefs, why would they be Protestants?
Why would nobody until the 16th century share your beliefs?
"This seemed like very rational for the Roman church for over 1700 years so why did it change?"
It did not change it evolved. The magisterium in union with the Pope also shares the same charism.
@savia-you ask a lot of questions, some good. I am not saying that protestantism is the source of all truth. Neither am I saying that my beliefs are all true. I think they are but I could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe catholic church is not a monolithic institution. People have believed much that neither one of us believe and were still Catholics. True, Athanasius was not a Protestant, but Wesley was and I guarantee that you share most of your faith with him. Truth is found in the strangest places...and I am confident that there were people before the 17th century who shared most if not all my beliefs. Why not, since at least one or two Catholics today most certainly do.
I wrote canonical within parantheses to show that I meant that they were considered authoritative before a council said so. The council confirmed a view already held, not vice versa.
there is no such thing as an evolving infallibility. Either you are or you're not. Question: is it retroactive and if so how far back and for all papal bulls...and if not then why not since the office not the person is infallible?