...At the mail window today, an acquaintance mentioned to me this book, which will be making its debut shortly. I don't think she had an agenda in pointing it out; I took it as a surprising but nice gesture in trying to build bridges.
But I found myself in another conversation at the mail window, this one with a Trevecca Catholic. We picked up a discussion concerning the latest 'wreckovations' to the little and lovable McClurkan prayer chapel. In a not-so-unusual fashion, we Treveccans figured we would take a beautiful idea - an idea blossoming within the bosom of an ancient Church, an idea we'd completely forgotten to ignore for all 100 years of our denomination's existence - and, having taken this mere 'idea,' suddenly decide to enter the liturgical conversation with guns blazing. 'Stations'? Jesus dropping the Cross? What's that all that silly stuff about? Let's make it better; let's improve on it. Let's make a bucket of water with stones that will symbolise our worries (so we can 'attach' the 'worry' to the stones and then drop them in the 'sea of forgetfulness') and a wooden cross to which we can nail our sins.
The Stations transformed to party games and apple-bobbings - I am sorry, but while that started out very close on paper, it ended up with absolutely no cigar whatsoever. It is good we can recognise ancient energy flowing from the forms of higher liturgy and physical habits, but wearing these liturgies and physical practises like so many frail garments hardly admits the true nature of the issue: Nazarenedom is not Catholicism.
And there are all kinds of continuing conversations with fellow graduates and those who are still religion students here, sometimes at that little mail window. People continue knocking on my door with evidence that pockets and interest-groups within Nazarenedom are exhibiting 'liturgical beauty.' People keep making the case for 'reforming' the Nazarene denomination by pointing to the hope that comes with this development of 'higher liturgy.'
Show me the loosest and most flippant Mass, and I'll show you something that still finds its grounding in the Life of the Substance of God. What we as a people apparently don't realise (or don't want to realise) is that there is a 2000-year-old life energy and doctrinal narrative behind the manifestation of Catholic liturgy - something that the Nazarene denomination is just starting to realise (far too late in the game) that it needs to be concerned about. Liturgy is the manifestation of creed and disciplined spirituality, not a 'fix-all' we can strap onto church services to pull this disillusioned generation back into the doors of the churches. While 'high liturgy' is good and shows a sort of openness that may eventually creak wide open into a doorway for the full Truth, putting robes on everybody and reciting creeds we neither fully develop/breed nor fully believe ('communion of saints', 'one holy catholic and apostolic Church', etc.) isn't going to ultimately 'fix' anything. We're still playing games. We're still playing dress-up-as-Mass-day.
-Rick
27 February 2008
26 February 2008
...Speaking of Confession...
-I was baptised when I was eight . . . man alive. There's been quite a lot of sinning since.
A few people have asked the good question: 'Didn't you already confess your sins directly to God? Isn't that good enough?' I did confess some of these sins; however, I've been a Protestant, and so most of these sins I didn't even recognise as sin in the first place. Terms like 'detraction' and 'scandal' are real categories in relation to real sins. Also, even though accountability isn't altogether absent in Nazarenedom, when confession is a poorly defined sphere of 'me and my idea of a disembodied Jesus,' it takes a grueling effort to really avoid wandering around hit-or-miss in the dark chasing after every wind of doctrine.
Also, while God does heal us in our visible and invisible aspects (that much is certain and obvious), He has given us physical doctors and priests to be His instruments of healing. I know that's a horrendously simplistic comparison with bad logic (especially given the history of medicine), but it paints the portrait very well. If the logic troubles you, imagine the Doctor of doctors starting a medical university - but forget those jokers, right? you can deal with that little 'flesh wound' by yourself. God does miraculously heal, and there is much we don't understand about His healing; yet if I put a hatchet through my leg, while hopefully praying, you can bet I'll also be finding the quickest means to the emergency room. We can acknowledge that God does ask for contrition and desires to give mercy, but we know that God has given His apostles the mission of ambassadors/enactors in forgiving sins (living out His 'being sent' on earth - see John 20:19-23). God can stop bleeding and can whimsically forgive sin in complete disregard for His established order; He's God. But why live life making such gambles? Especially given the alternatives, it seems a no-brainer to me - if bleeding, get stitches from a doctor; if dead, be absolved in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit by a priest acting 'in-the-person-of-Christ.' Once we stop seeing the priest as the 'add-on' and start realising that this Protestant notion of disembodied, brain-powered forgiveness is a relatively new fad on the scene, this becomes a little bit easier to swallow.
Anyway, this is all so safely stated in vague terms. For me, it comes down to recognising that I'm particularly bloody and bleeding. Do what you want to do and what you feel you can 'get by' with, but I desperately need absolution.
-Rick
A few people have asked the good question: 'Didn't you already confess your sins directly to God? Isn't that good enough?' I did confess some of these sins; however, I've been a Protestant, and so most of these sins I didn't even recognise as sin in the first place. Terms like 'detraction' and 'scandal' are real categories in relation to real sins. Also, even though accountability isn't altogether absent in Nazarenedom, when confession is a poorly defined sphere of 'me and my idea of a disembodied Jesus,' it takes a grueling effort to really avoid wandering around hit-or-miss in the dark chasing after every wind of doctrine.
Also, while God does heal us in our visible and invisible aspects (that much is certain and obvious), He has given us physical doctors and priests to be His instruments of healing. I know that's a horrendously simplistic comparison with bad logic (especially given the history of medicine), but it paints the portrait very well. If the logic troubles you, imagine the Doctor of doctors starting a medical university - but forget those jokers, right? you can deal with that little 'flesh wound' by yourself. God does miraculously heal, and there is much we don't understand about His healing; yet if I put a hatchet through my leg, while hopefully praying, you can bet I'll also be finding the quickest means to the emergency room. We can acknowledge that God does ask for contrition and desires to give mercy, but we know that God has given His apostles the mission of ambassadors/enactors in forgiving sins (living out His 'being sent' on earth - see John 20:19-23). God can stop bleeding and can whimsically forgive sin in complete disregard for His established order; He's God. But why live life making such gambles? Especially given the alternatives, it seems a no-brainer to me - if bleeding, get stitches from a doctor; if dead, be absolved in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit by a priest acting 'in-the-person-of-Christ.' Once we stop seeing the priest as the 'add-on' and start realising that this Protestant notion of disembodied, brain-powered forgiveness is a relatively new fad on the scene, this becomes a little bit easier to swallow.
Anyway, this is all so safely stated in vague terms. For me, it comes down to recognising that I'm particularly bloody and bleeding. Do what you want to do and what you feel you can 'get by' with, but I desperately need absolution.
-Rick
24 February 2008
Interruption: Setting the Record Straight
It's mandatory for me to contradict myself on this as much as possible; it's a tradition of sorts.
Yes, the real 'interactions' have been off the Internet, where they probably should be. However, since most of these interactions involve things that are being written here and elsewhere, I'll use this as a 'parallel' means of communication (a bulletin board tack for everyone's eyes alongside the everyday conversations). Let me state two realities for the record:
(1) I have not heard from the Pope, nor do I expect to hear from the Holy Father at any point, concerning my being an official spokesperson for the Catholic Church. I do understand that in one sense I am a spokesperson, but in this latest entry series I have acknowledged at least twice that I'm merely trying to provoke thought (not trying to make airtight arguments). I'm a horrible debater, and I'm horrible at making any good points about anything.
So, please (a big Reading Rainbow shout-out here), don't take my word for it. Call me out, challenge me, etc., but don't take one person's word on it. I'm small potatoes. Please take it all with a grain of salt and investigate.
(2) The Catholic Church doesn't have 'all the answers,' despite the charges from hyper triumphalists and skeptics - but let me be more precise in what exactly I mean. The Church is not lacking where 'something else' may 'fill' a void; it is lacking simply where humanity cannot probe the mind of God Almighty or His complex workings in the universe, though even in this She does have the revelation of the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit that provides insight into some of these elements. Ultimately, I'm acknowledging the following: The Church Herself teaches that even if a person is acknowledged as a Doctor in the Church (and there are but a few of these), this doesn't automatically mean that all her/his teachings are immune to the the judgment of heresy. The Catholic Church does not 'make' people saints in some sort of juxtaposition to God's grace (She acknowledges their sainthood and serves as the Holy Spirit's agent of mysterious sanctification in the world), nor can She absolutely say that a person who, for example, commits suicide has automatically dodged 'Go' and gone directly to hell (there are many factors of culpability to be considered, and ultimately we as humans just don't know how a merciful and just God will rule on the matter). We humans do not know the 'precise parametres' of sanctifying grace, nor will we ever know whether or not (or how) God saves souls who do not acknowledge and accept the Lord's lordship and Body. There are many, many things about life we, as humans, simply don't 'know' in any scientific sense, and we simply will never know many things - because some elements of reality are beyond conscious human reason.
This is certainly no excuse for laziness; God did give us human reason for a very beautiful reason. Furthermore, what the Church does say in authoritative/doctrinal terms concerns the best way of living and believing. God, in all beauty and fullness, is certainly beyond human comprehension, and we (in our finite and even fallen state) have only begun to glimpse His glory, even in His extremely visible Son; yet it has been revealed (and given to us as a language) that God is Triune, and it is right and true to talk about God in such terms. This certainly doesn't suggest that we have God 'encapsulated,' but it does suggest we've been given a revelation, a glimpse into the heart/reality of God. Also, as another example, it may be that you make it to heaven by the grace of God if you get crushed by a semi on the way to confessing cold-blooded murder, but why not go to confession frequently and leave the freak accidents freaky instead of gambling?
So, please, let's let the record sit up straight. The Holy Spirit is at work in the Church, and the Church has anticipated/battled several problems that human reason alone would not have anticipated/battled; furthermore, the Church is the fullness of humanity. However, don't think that I'm under the impression that the Catholic Church is 'the answer' in some sort of skimpy, ludicrous, one-size-bandage-fits-all sort of way. The Church as it has been represented in its human characters and various 'sub-plots' has been involved in some very bizarre and questionable actualities and events. All in all, though, She is still the Bride of Christ, for whom He gave His life.
-Rick
Yes, the real 'interactions' have been off the Internet, where they probably should be. However, since most of these interactions involve things that are being written here and elsewhere, I'll use this as a 'parallel' means of communication (a bulletin board tack for everyone's eyes alongside the everyday conversations). Let me state two realities for the record:
(1) I have not heard from the Pope, nor do I expect to hear from the Holy Father at any point, concerning my being an official spokesperson for the Catholic Church. I do understand that in one sense I am a spokesperson, but in this latest entry series I have acknowledged at least twice that I'm merely trying to provoke thought (not trying to make airtight arguments). I'm a horrible debater, and I'm horrible at making any good points about anything.
So, please (a big Reading Rainbow shout-out here), don't take my word for it. Call me out, challenge me, etc., but don't take one person's word on it. I'm small potatoes. Please take it all with a grain of salt and investigate.
(2) The Catholic Church doesn't have 'all the answers,' despite the charges from hyper triumphalists and skeptics - but let me be more precise in what exactly I mean. The Church is not lacking where 'something else' may 'fill' a void; it is lacking simply where humanity cannot probe the mind of God Almighty or His complex workings in the universe, though even in this She does have the revelation of the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit that provides insight into some of these elements. Ultimately, I'm acknowledging the following: The Church Herself teaches that even if a person is acknowledged as a Doctor in the Church (and there are but a few of these), this doesn't automatically mean that all her/his teachings are immune to the the judgment of heresy. The Catholic Church does not 'make' people saints in some sort of juxtaposition to God's grace (She acknowledges their sainthood and serves as the Holy Spirit's agent of mysterious sanctification in the world), nor can She absolutely say that a person who, for example, commits suicide has automatically dodged 'Go' and gone directly to hell (there are many factors of culpability to be considered, and ultimately we as humans just don't know how a merciful and just God will rule on the matter). We humans do not know the 'precise parametres' of sanctifying grace, nor will we ever know whether or not (or how) God saves souls who do not acknowledge and accept the Lord's lordship and Body. There are many, many things about life we, as humans, simply don't 'know' in any scientific sense, and we simply will never know many things - because some elements of reality are beyond conscious human reason.
This is certainly no excuse for laziness; God did give us human reason for a very beautiful reason. Furthermore, what the Church does say in authoritative/doctrinal terms concerns the best way of living and believing. God, in all beauty and fullness, is certainly beyond human comprehension, and we (in our finite and even fallen state) have only begun to glimpse His glory, even in His extremely visible Son; yet it has been revealed (and given to us as a language) that God is Triune, and it is right and true to talk about God in such terms. This certainly doesn't suggest that we have God 'encapsulated,' but it does suggest we've been given a revelation, a glimpse into the heart/reality of God. Also, as another example, it may be that you make it to heaven by the grace of God if you get crushed by a semi on the way to confessing cold-blooded murder, but why not go to confession frequently and leave the freak accidents freaky instead of gambling?
So, please, let's let the record sit up straight. The Holy Spirit is at work in the Church, and the Church has anticipated/battled several problems that human reason alone would not have anticipated/battled; furthermore, the Church is the fullness of humanity. However, don't think that I'm under the impression that the Catholic Church is 'the answer' in some sort of skimpy, ludicrous, one-size-bandage-fits-all sort of way. The Church as it has been represented in its human characters and various 'sub-plots' has been involved in some very bizarre and questionable actualities and events. All in all, though, She is still the Bride of Christ, for whom He gave His life.
-Rick
23 February 2008
In the Spirit of MarioKart Memories: Red Light, Red Light,...
EDIT: Apparently my MarioKart Memories are inaccurate.
This afternoon's 'after-work' scheduled goal for my Synoptic Gospels exegetical project:
-Begin writing Part I, consulting the critical sources I compiled in the last two days.
My actual activities this afternoon for the project:
-Decide on a passage and begin finding critical sources.
This is a project that will involve an oral presentation at the end of the semester. So, yeah . . . journaling will be out of the question, starting this afternoon and ending . . . who knows.
I Sometimes Title Poetry So That I Can Find It Again when Building Chapbooks and the Like
Mail-meter machines sing songs
('WHEEEE ooooo Weeeeeeeee -- CHIK CHIK'),
The gentle humming of drumming out postage tapes,
But the world is metaphor to me, And equally Paula sees efficiencies.
Yet no merely double-edged sword
Complicit with quick rendering edges,
Judi enjoys, describes
It differently perhaps than Paul, then
Kevin, and Linda
Does as well.
What profundity become profanity
What profanity become profundity
What rippled sanity in ladders like Jacob's
What strange mystical profanity when
Crinkled people in their
Cleft
Covered-up rocks
Seek to see
Then glimpse His robes or are they coat-tails;
-Rick
This afternoon's 'after-work' scheduled goal for my Synoptic Gospels exegetical project:
-Begin writing Part I, consulting the critical sources I compiled in the last two days.
My actual activities this afternoon for the project:
-Decide on a passage and begin finding critical sources.
This is a project that will involve an oral presentation at the end of the semester. So, yeah . . . journaling will be out of the question, starting this afternoon and ending . . . who knows.
I Sometimes Title Poetry So That I Can Find It Again when Building Chapbooks and the Like
Mail-meter machines sing songs
('WHEEEE ooooo Weeeeeeeee -- CHIK CHIK'),
The gentle humming of drumming out postage tapes,
But the world is metaphor to me, And equally Paula sees efficiencies.
Yet no merely double-edged sword
Complicit with quick rendering edges,
Judi enjoys, describes
It differently perhaps than Paul, then
Kevin, and Linda
Does as well.
What profundity become profanity
What profanity become profundity
What rippled sanity in ladders like Jacob's
What strange mystical profanity when
Crinkled people in their
Cleft
Covered-up rocks
Seek to see
Then glimpse His robes or are they coat-tails;
-Rick
19 February 2008
'Regarding icons, I think it is interesting to note that despite the commandment against graven images, God HimSelf commands Moses to put statues of the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant. Not only does this disprove the idea that the command was against religious statues/images as such, but also implicitly approves the concept of veneration. Processions anyone?'
Exactly, Joshua; that is a very valid and fitting insight.
As stated at the outset of this entry series (and again this has nothing to do with my particular 'weight' as an arguer or writer), I would warn a 'Protestant' person against getting too heavily involved in reading stuff like this entry series if a change isn't desired. I'm really not saying that to be cocky, though of course I could say such things and take vain pleasure out of the whole thing. There have been many curious interactions ever since I began this series, and I feel like there's been fair warning. I just can't stress that warning enough, though obviously it would be great to see the Church more and more united. I'm among many who don't want anyone getting 'ambushed' unless the person knows that it is he/she stepping into the 'trap' of Truth herself/himself. Priests don't nab people off the street and zap out their hearts or brains; I've noticed that we're generally flocking to the priest with hunger. But don't flirt with seeking unless you truly want to find; it's just the nature of the situation and the subject.
The next entry will deal with confession, with a general nod to John 20:19-23 among many other things.
-Rick
Exactly, Joshua; that is a very valid and fitting insight.
As stated at the outset of this entry series (and again this has nothing to do with my particular 'weight' as an arguer or writer), I would warn a 'Protestant' person against getting too heavily involved in reading stuff like this entry series if a change isn't desired. I'm really not saying that to be cocky, though of course I could say such things and take vain pleasure out of the whole thing. There have been many curious interactions ever since I began this series, and I feel like there's been fair warning. I just can't stress that warning enough, though obviously it would be great to see the Church more and more united. I'm among many who don't want anyone getting 'ambushed' unless the person knows that it is he/she stepping into the 'trap' of Truth herself/himself. Priests don't nab people off the street and zap out their hearts or brains; I've noticed that we're generally flocking to the priest with hunger. But don't flirt with seeking unless you truly want to find; it's just the nature of the situation and the subject.
The next entry will deal with confession, with a general nod to John 20:19-23 among many other things.
-Rick
16 February 2008
Reasons to Not Become Catholic, Part III.C.: Mary and Reverence
Before I begin, I would like to catch my breath and reflect. I would point out that I do, in fact, respect the piety of those who seek to preserve the worship of God Almighty, even in disdaining the Holy Mother; your heart is in the right place. My sarcastic and playful approach to this subject is done (I hope) in good humour. It is indeed aggravating for me, however, to watch the casual calumny tossed around at the Blessed Virgin, and I do think this is an important case to be taken up.
Regarding an e-mailed question from an acquaintance, picking up on a consideration of the last entry. . .
(. . .5.) '[Concerning John 19:26-27,] Couldn't the "giving to Mary a son" be a parable lesson, just as the other parable [Mark 3 and Matthew 12] is a parable?'
Well, due to the apparent concern laced in the passage (evidenced by the note of the disciple taking the Holy Mother into his household), this seems to be a practical matter as well as a parabolic/revelational matter. I'm certainly open to this not being 'proof' of Mary's perpetual virginity; I merely tossed it out there to show a largely potential problem. But let's take this up along the lines of your suggestion. Let's imagine for a moment that we could reduce this to the 'merely figurative'; I'm not sure (if we're trying to take up the pre-reconciled case) that would be a good move, because we then have a squirmy pre-reconciliation Catch-22 on our hands. If Jesus had no literal brothers, then the Catholic Church is affirmed in its teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity; if, on the other hand, Jesus used this as a parable lesson and was trying to communicate something (important enough to be a dying parable), what was He communicating? Along with numerous other messages, this would suggest that (in Jesus' dying moments) He was giving a Mother to the disciple who was present. If we're going to reduce this to 'just an image' - an image right before His death - we still have to deal with the imagery element of these words. Jesus' reinterpreted actions here would, along with many other potential pictures, be a typological picture of the disciple's (as in any disciple's) relationship toward Mary and/or the Church.
-Sure, in that second option, the pre-reconciled case triumpantly succeeds in 'dirtying up' Mary's reputation (congratulations and a round of applause for the mission accomplished), but suddenly the grounds for justifying (1) the 'de-emphasis' of Mary, as Pre-reconciliation has inevitably done, and/or (2) the rupture from the Church - the grounds for justifying these look exceedingly precarious for Pre-reconciliation, even more precarious than the Church potentially worshiping Mary. Basically, given the situation, the pre-reconciled case can either take full-on cannon fire or else fire its own cannons cross-ways through its own loose hull (in an attempt to take both ships down). Given either option, are we sure we want to follow this line of thought to support the Pre-reconciliation case?
1. 'Come on - ikons?! statues?! How much more closer to idolatry can you be? What, do you need a sign over it that says "This is an idol"?'
a. The Two Kings, The Two Understandings of the Kingdom
First of all, again, the Blessed Virgin, the martyrs and saints, and the angels are not worshiped. Again, I invoke the two images of the King of Kings - the Pre-reconciliation image (God as a glorious king in a concrete basement and with no servants) and the Catholic image (God as a glorious king in a glorious throne-room with servants who are dressed to reflect His glory). God is a jealous God for His people's love, but God has shown (and gives us) a love that doesn't 'compete' among the various entities of veneration; it is a plenitudinous and interconnected love - an overflowing love - in which our love for God spills out into the admiration of the Blessed Virgin and others, who bore and reflected God's grace and love. Though the statues, ikons, etc. are not the Blessed Virgin herself, they make the Blessed Virgin visibly 'present' in our lives, serving as reminders and (in the mystic sense) material portals through which we spiritually see her.
b. God Became Flesh
Second, the Incarnation changes everything. We certainly shouldn't worship the statues of Mary anymore than we would worship a cup of coffee or a teddy bear (which, incidentally, is an image of something in Creation). However, insofar as the images themselves aren't worshiped, we are living in the Revelation of the Incarnation. God commanded the Israelites to make 'no graven images' of Him or anything in Creation for worship, but (while this commandment still rings true) God Himself 'inscribed' an image for us: He took on flesh and became a very specific human being. St. John, in his prologue, describes Jesus Christ literally as the 'exegesis' (translation) of the unseen God. This does alter reality quite dramatically. In the Everlasting breaking into human history quite specifically, we see heaven and earth (seen and unseen, temporal and everlasting) being woven back together as it was in the beginning. Human bodies as well as souls have been and have begun being redeemed; images have been and have begun being redeemed; Creation (particularly, the material world) has been and has begun being redeemed.
In light of this plenitudinous ('full') salvation and weaving, it is not at all idolatrous to have images to make present the full 'communion of saints.' When we come to Mass - where we are invited to join the numbers in heaven in their unending hymns of praise; where bread and wine become the vessels for the Risen Lord to come to us - there is nothing wrong with also having in our churches the statues of those who have been perfected into the Life of God. In fact, this is a beautiful reminder and vessel for our remembrance/'spiritual-life'/awareness that we are surrounded by the great cloud of witnesses, on earth and in heaven.
2. Conclusion: No Footing, No Roots, No Authority, No Meaning
Click here for a fairly large collection of quotes (including, of particular interest to Nazarenes, one of John Wesley's) from various Protestant leaders concerning the doctrines/theologies that contemporary Pre-reconciliation groups and persons have rejected. What is my point here? 'Protestants' (by and large) aren't even true to their Protestant roots anymore! At the end of the day (in Western culture's setting sun), we have burned all the bridges in a sort of paranoid witch-hunt, and now there are no more bridges beyond a terminally-ill, individualistic conception of Christianity. Is this the world-altering Gospel, the true and unadulterated face of Christianity? I seriously doubt this is what Christ had in mind when He said the Holy Spirit would lead His disciples into all truth.
-Rick
Regarding an e-mailed question from an acquaintance, picking up on a consideration of the last entry. . .
(. . .5.) '[Concerning John 19:26-27,] Couldn't the "giving to Mary a son" be a parable lesson, just as the other parable [Mark 3 and Matthew 12] is a parable?'
Well, due to the apparent concern laced in the passage (evidenced by the note of the disciple taking the Holy Mother into his household), this seems to be a practical matter as well as a parabolic/revelational matter. I'm certainly open to this not being 'proof' of Mary's perpetual virginity; I merely tossed it out there to show a largely potential problem. But let's take this up along the lines of your suggestion. Let's imagine for a moment that we could reduce this to the 'merely figurative'; I'm not sure (if we're trying to take up the pre-reconciled case) that would be a good move, because we then have a squirmy pre-reconciliation Catch-22 on our hands. If Jesus had no literal brothers, then the Catholic Church is affirmed in its teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity; if, on the other hand, Jesus used this as a parable lesson and was trying to communicate something (important enough to be a dying parable), what was He communicating? Along with numerous other messages, this would suggest that (in Jesus' dying moments) He was giving a Mother to the disciple who was present. If we're going to reduce this to 'just an image' - an image right before His death - we still have to deal with the imagery element of these words. Jesus' reinterpreted actions here would, along with many other potential pictures, be a typological picture of the disciple's (as in any disciple's) relationship toward Mary and/or the Church.
-Sure, in that second option, the pre-reconciled case triumpantly succeeds in 'dirtying up' Mary's reputation (congratulations and a round of applause for the mission accomplished), but suddenly the grounds for justifying (1) the 'de-emphasis' of Mary, as Pre-reconciliation has inevitably done, and/or (2) the rupture from the Church - the grounds for justifying these look exceedingly precarious for Pre-reconciliation, even more precarious than the Church potentially worshiping Mary. Basically, given the situation, the pre-reconciled case can either take full-on cannon fire or else fire its own cannons cross-ways through its own loose hull (in an attempt to take both ships down). Given either option, are we sure we want to follow this line of thought to support the Pre-reconciliation case?
1. 'Come on - ikons?! statues?! How much more closer to idolatry can you be? What, do you need a sign over it that says "This is an idol"?'
a. The Two Kings, The Two Understandings of the Kingdom
First of all, again, the Blessed Virgin, the martyrs and saints, and the angels are not worshiped. Again, I invoke the two images of the King of Kings - the Pre-reconciliation image (God as a glorious king in a concrete basement and with no servants) and the Catholic image (God as a glorious king in a glorious throne-room with servants who are dressed to reflect His glory). God is a jealous God for His people's love, but God has shown (and gives us) a love that doesn't 'compete' among the various entities of veneration; it is a plenitudinous and interconnected love - an overflowing love - in which our love for God spills out into the admiration of the Blessed Virgin and others, who bore and reflected God's grace and love. Though the statues, ikons, etc. are not the Blessed Virgin herself, they make the Blessed Virgin visibly 'present' in our lives, serving as reminders and (in the mystic sense) material portals through which we spiritually see her.
b. God Became Flesh
Second, the Incarnation changes everything. We certainly shouldn't worship the statues of Mary anymore than we would worship a cup of coffee or a teddy bear (which, incidentally, is an image of something in Creation). However, insofar as the images themselves aren't worshiped, we are living in the Revelation of the Incarnation. God commanded the Israelites to make 'no graven images' of Him or anything in Creation for worship, but (while this commandment still rings true) God Himself 'inscribed' an image for us: He took on flesh and became a very specific human being. St. John, in his prologue, describes Jesus Christ literally as the 'exegesis' (translation) of the unseen God. This does alter reality quite dramatically. In the Everlasting breaking into human history quite specifically, we see heaven and earth (seen and unseen, temporal and everlasting) being woven back together as it was in the beginning. Human bodies as well as souls have been and have begun being redeemed; images have been and have begun being redeemed; Creation (particularly, the material world) has been and has begun being redeemed.
In light of this plenitudinous ('full') salvation and weaving, it is not at all idolatrous to have images to make present the full 'communion of saints.' When we come to Mass - where we are invited to join the numbers in heaven in their unending hymns of praise; where bread and wine become the vessels for the Risen Lord to come to us - there is nothing wrong with also having in our churches the statues of those who have been perfected into the Life of God. In fact, this is a beautiful reminder and vessel for our remembrance/'spiritual-life'/awareness that we are surrounded by the great cloud of witnesses, on earth and in heaven.
2. Conclusion: No Footing, No Roots, No Authority, No Meaning
Click here for a fairly large collection of quotes (including, of particular interest to Nazarenes, one of John Wesley's) from various Protestant leaders concerning the doctrines/theologies that contemporary Pre-reconciliation groups and persons have rejected. What is my point here? 'Protestants' (by and large) aren't even true to their Protestant roots anymore! At the end of the day (in Western culture's setting sun), we have burned all the bridges in a sort of paranoid witch-hunt, and now there are no more bridges beyond a terminally-ill, individualistic conception of Christianity. Is this the world-altering Gospel, the true and unadulterated face of Christianity? I seriously doubt this is what Christ had in mind when He said the Holy Spirit would lead His disciples into all truth.
-Rick
15 February 2008
Reason to Not Become Catholic, Part III.B.: Mary and Reverence
'History shows . . . that a Christianity which no longer gives our Lady the homage accorded her by the Church is a mutilated Christianity . . . Once refuse to admit the uniqueness of his Mother and the Christ you think you have kept is but a disfigured Christ; no longer do God and man come together in him . . .'
-Louis Bouyer (emphasis mine)
Apparently, the 'New Testament Church' looked quite a bit different than that which the historical evidence seems to suggest. . .
The Catholic Faith does not buy into the novel notion of 'Sola Scriptura' - Scripture alone - but in order to make my case for the Blessed Virgin complete, I feel it necessary to address some 'Scriptural' objections to the veneration of Mary as virgin and upright (the latter of which is a particularly shameful attack).
First, I'll address two Biblical and one historical objections concerning the 'invented' doctrines about Mary. Second, I will show a very, very early Marian understanding in the faith - especially in regard to the 'invented' doctrines. Third, I will call to task the anti-Catholic doctrine of ahistorical infallibility.
1. 'But Scripture clearly speaks of Jesus' brothers. -And James was 'the brother of our Lord'! How on earth can the Catholic Church sustain any teaching about Mary's perpetual virginity?'
a. The Tiny 'John Problem'
If we're going to use Sola Scriptura, then let's use Scripture. There is a notable kink that arises in trying to denounce the title of the Blessed Virgin:
'When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.'
(John 19:26)
While we're throwing out doctrines of the Church, we might as well throw out the troublesome Scripture passages that come along with them.
This passage is loaded for many, many different explorations. However, for the present objection, it is noteworthy that 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' took the Blessed Virgin into his household. Given the Jewish culture, this strongly suggests that St. Joseph had died prior to Jesus' crucifixion, and that every single one of His dogmatically-defined brothers died prior to this as well (even St. James, who wrote a letter after his apparent death). -Please pardon my sarcasm. If Jesus did have literal 'brothers', wouldn't they be the ones to take care of His mother? In this instance, though, we see Jesus giving His Mother a son and the disciple His Mother - and, again, this is loaded for exploration.
b. Greek Language and Jewish Culture vs. English Language and Modern 'Nuclear Families'
Enter the reality of the translation; also (and paralleling this), here we have a case of reading our modern context and subsequent linguistics into the ancient cultural context of Scripture.
First of all, it must be noted that much of the New Testament is not written in purely 'Greek Greek'; in fact, most of the Gospels and books within the New Testament contain a wide variety of 'Semitisms' - that is, Hebrew or Aramaic words/constructions that are conveyed by ('carried through') the actual Greek language. Examples of this would include explicit elements like Jesus' 'Eloi eloi lama sabachthani' and the words 'Golgotha' and 'Corban' as well as countless other nuanced elements, like the phrase 'he/she was full of days' to express old age, and St. John's 'ego eimi' ('I am') to express the divinity of Christ.
In noting this, it is then helpful to look at the word itself in the original language. In every single reference to Jesus' 'siblings' - including St. James' own reference to himself - the Greek word adelphos (plural: adelphoi)[1] is used, which, like the Greek word for 'all,' has several variant meanings. This can and does primarily mean 'a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother.' However, it can also quite honestly refer to a person of the same clan/family, one of the same nationality, or even one who is 'united to another by a bond of affection.' And considering the early Church's teachings of Mary's perpetual virginity (which will be addressed later in this entry), I would personally find it reasonable to line up the highly potential ambiguity with the Church's teachings and translate the adelphoi of Jesus as 'relatives' or 'cousins.'
Furthermore, given the ancient, Jewish/Hebrew scenery of the Gospel story - NOT our modern, 'nuclear family' mindset in which relationship status is clearly spelled out - it seems highly likely to me that the adelphoi of Jesus are indeed related to him, but as fellow members of a clan/family (cousins, uncles, etc.) - perhaps more distantly than closely related, as would make sense given the previous section's consideration (i.e. the Blessed Virgin being taken into St. John's house). Using the Old Testament as a reference, 'brother' can be as very specific or patriotically general as much as it is used.
2. 'Using Mark 3 as a reference, it is apparent that Mary didn't recognise who Jesus really was and, in fact, may have opposed Him. Also, Jesus' words in both Mark 3 and Matthew 12 indicate that He did not have high regard for them.'
a. Jesus' Words
This reminds me of a scholar who recently tried to write a novel revealing the 'real Paul,' a Paul who wandered the cobble-stone streets of Tarsus as a teenager and who had a mystical experience on one occasion by watching the pagan sacrifices. Quite simply, this objection is putting a whole load of words into Jesus' mouth. All that is written is this:
'"Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" and stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."'
I do initially see how this seems to indicate a 'detachment' of Jesus toward His family, which particularly resonates with the rebel-without-a-cause mentality of 'Protest-antism', but this is simply taking the artistic expression of a teaching parable and reducing it to the scientific notations of our own agendas. It is fine to be completely logical with the parable (which is why I understand the initial sense of scorn), but we have to consider the message of Jesus' words and furthermore avoid reading our mindsets into Jesus' nuanced words. I have news for everyone: when Jesus said His disciples are the 'salt of the earth,' I don't believe He wasn't envisioning them in a table shaker. Maybe He was, but I highly doubt it.
Is it going to be Sola Scriptura, or Sola Protestantism? I see a lot of dubious textures (complete with psychological back-stories) given to one particular parable out of many.
b. The Situation as a Whole
The issue of 'reading in our own meanings' continues into the rest of the passage. I've heard various people - even a Bible professor at Trevecca whom I deeply respect - describe the journey of 'Mary and the brothers' as concern over Jesus losing His mind. I've heard all kinds of wild concoctions of stories, generally along the lines of His 'mother' trying to stop His teaching.
Let's let the Bible speak for itself, if that's what we're going to do. The passage itself simply states Jesus' mothers and relatives/cousins came to Him and 'called for Him', and that He used this to provoke a parable. Perhaps the crowds in Mark 3:8 were coming to tell Jesus to shut up as well; we're given about as much information as to their coming as the coming of the Blessed Virgin and those accompanying her.
It is simply speculation and silliness to turn this passage into some kind of a 'denouncement' of the Blessed Virgin, and what's more, I find it heart-breaking that we go out of our way to slander the Holy Mother just so we can have ourselves a nice bowl of 'Protest-ant' stew.
c. Mary's Treasuring
Again, let's let Scripture talk. Do phrases like 'Mary treasured [stored up] all these things in her heart' ring any bells? They should, because they are in the Pre-reconciled idol, the Holy Scriptures. In the Nativity story, Mary does seem to be observing and aware of the events taking place around her.
3. 'The notion of putting Mary on such a lofty pedestal is a perversion of original New Testament Christianity.'
Instead of merely reposting quotes, I'll offer the following link. These are from the writings of early Church leaders, some of the earliest writings:
http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2006/05/marian_theology_in_the_early_c.html
I would also offer these quotes from St. Ephrem, which are from writings pre-373 (that is, before the dogma of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the two natures of Christ had been completely hammered out[2]):
'You alone and Your Mother are good in every way; for there is no blemish in Thee, my Lord, and no stain in Thy Mother.'
-Nisibene Hymns, 27:8[3]
'O virgin lady, immaculate Mother of God, my lady most glorious, most gracious, higher than heaven, much purer than the sun's splendor, rays, or light . . . you bore God and the Word according to the flesh, preserving your virginity before childbirth, a virgin after childbirth.'
-From 'Prayer to the Most Holy Mother of God'[3]
4. Ahistorical Infallibility
Ultimately and not surprisingly, these 'Scriptural' objections to Marian theology are the fruit of Pre-reconciled/'Protest-ant' theology; by a fruit you shall know the tree, so to speak. First the Pre-reconciled groups divorced 'man's traditions' (i.e. the Roman Catholic ones) from Scripture to save Scripture, but now (with no historical context remaining) we see that this divorce has disfigured even the reading of Scripture. The believer 'as a priest' ultimately becomes the new pope, and so we witness the ridiculous 'ahistorical' reading (i.e. a reading devoid of historical context) of Scripture.
I call it the doctrine of ahistorical infallibility, and this will be addressed in the next entry. 'I don't see that in the Bible' . . . basically, nevermind what all the early Christian writers left for us. Somehow there exists this untenable notion that the Pre-reconciled person's reading of the Bible - isolated in her/his closet - will somehow be more reflective of 'New Testament Christianity' (an abstract principle) than the people who were closer to the life of Jesus Christ and His apostles and actually were the New Testament Church. Our cavalier arrogance, when considered, astounds me.
[1]G80, Strong's Number 80
[2]Dave Armstrong
[3]cited from Dave Armstrong, cited from Hilda Graef's Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion (London: Sheed & Ward, 1965)
-Rick
-Louis Bouyer (emphasis mine)
Apparently, the 'New Testament Church' looked quite a bit different than that which the historical evidence seems to suggest. . .
The Catholic Faith does not buy into the novel notion of 'Sola Scriptura' - Scripture alone - but in order to make my case for the Blessed Virgin complete, I feel it necessary to address some 'Scriptural' objections to the veneration of Mary as virgin and upright (the latter of which is a particularly shameful attack).
First, I'll address two Biblical and one historical objections concerning the 'invented' doctrines about Mary. Second, I will show a very, very early Marian understanding in the faith - especially in regard to the 'invented' doctrines. Third, I will call to task the anti-Catholic doctrine of ahistorical infallibility.
1. 'But Scripture clearly speaks of Jesus' brothers. -And James was 'the brother of our Lord'! How on earth can the Catholic Church sustain any teaching about Mary's perpetual virginity?'
a. The Tiny 'John Problem'
If we're going to use Sola Scriptura, then let's use Scripture. There is a notable kink that arises in trying to denounce the title of the Blessed Virgin:
'When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.'
(John 19:26)
While we're throwing out doctrines of the Church, we might as well throw out the troublesome Scripture passages that come along with them.
This passage is loaded for many, many different explorations. However, for the present objection, it is noteworthy that 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' took the Blessed Virgin into his household. Given the Jewish culture, this strongly suggests that St. Joseph had died prior to Jesus' crucifixion, and that every single one of His dogmatically-defined brothers died prior to this as well (even St. James, who wrote a letter after his apparent death). -Please pardon my sarcasm. If Jesus did have literal 'brothers', wouldn't they be the ones to take care of His mother? In this instance, though, we see Jesus giving His Mother a son and the disciple His Mother - and, again, this is loaded for exploration.
b. Greek Language and Jewish Culture vs. English Language and Modern 'Nuclear Families'
Enter the reality of the translation; also (and paralleling this), here we have a case of reading our modern context and subsequent linguistics into the ancient cultural context of Scripture.
First of all, it must be noted that much of the New Testament is not written in purely 'Greek Greek'; in fact, most of the Gospels and books within the New Testament contain a wide variety of 'Semitisms' - that is, Hebrew or Aramaic words/constructions that are conveyed by ('carried through') the actual Greek language. Examples of this would include explicit elements like Jesus' 'Eloi eloi lama sabachthani' and the words 'Golgotha' and 'Corban' as well as countless other nuanced elements, like the phrase 'he/she was full of days' to express old age, and St. John's 'ego eimi' ('I am') to express the divinity of Christ.
In noting this, it is then helpful to look at the word itself in the original language. In every single reference to Jesus' 'siblings' - including St. James' own reference to himself - the Greek word adelphos (plural: adelphoi)[1] is used, which, like the Greek word for 'all,' has several variant meanings. This can and does primarily mean 'a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother.' However, it can also quite honestly refer to a person of the same clan/family, one of the same nationality, or even one who is 'united to another by a bond of affection.' And considering the early Church's teachings of Mary's perpetual virginity (which will be addressed later in this entry), I would personally find it reasonable to line up the highly potential ambiguity with the Church's teachings and translate the adelphoi of Jesus as 'relatives' or 'cousins.'
Furthermore, given the ancient, Jewish/Hebrew scenery of the Gospel story - NOT our modern, 'nuclear family' mindset in which relationship status is clearly spelled out - it seems highly likely to me that the adelphoi of Jesus are indeed related to him, but as fellow members of a clan/family (cousins, uncles, etc.) - perhaps more distantly than closely related, as would make sense given the previous section's consideration (i.e. the Blessed Virgin being taken into St. John's house). Using the Old Testament as a reference, 'brother' can be as very specific or patriotically general as much as it is used.
2. 'Using Mark 3 as a reference, it is apparent that Mary didn't recognise who Jesus really was and, in fact, may have opposed Him. Also, Jesus' words in both Mark 3 and Matthew 12 indicate that He did not have high regard for them.'
a. Jesus' Words
This reminds me of a scholar who recently tried to write a novel revealing the 'real Paul,' a Paul who wandered the cobble-stone streets of Tarsus as a teenager and who had a mystical experience on one occasion by watching the pagan sacrifices. Quite simply, this objection is putting a whole load of words into Jesus' mouth. All that is written is this:
'"Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" and stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."'
I do initially see how this seems to indicate a 'detachment' of Jesus toward His family, which particularly resonates with the rebel-without-a-cause mentality of 'Protest-antism', but this is simply taking the artistic expression of a teaching parable and reducing it to the scientific notations of our own agendas. It is fine to be completely logical with the parable (which is why I understand the initial sense of scorn), but we have to consider the message of Jesus' words and furthermore avoid reading our mindsets into Jesus' nuanced words. I have news for everyone: when Jesus said His disciples are the 'salt of the earth,' I don't believe He wasn't envisioning them in a table shaker. Maybe He was, but I highly doubt it.
Is it going to be Sola Scriptura, or Sola Protestantism? I see a lot of dubious textures (complete with psychological back-stories) given to one particular parable out of many.
b. The Situation as a Whole
The issue of 'reading in our own meanings' continues into the rest of the passage. I've heard various people - even a Bible professor at Trevecca whom I deeply respect - describe the journey of 'Mary and the brothers' as concern over Jesus losing His mind. I've heard all kinds of wild concoctions of stories, generally along the lines of His 'mother' trying to stop His teaching.
Let's let the Bible speak for itself, if that's what we're going to do. The passage itself simply states Jesus' mothers and relatives/cousins came to Him and 'called for Him', and that He used this to provoke a parable. Perhaps the crowds in Mark 3:8 were coming to tell Jesus to shut up as well; we're given about as much information as to their coming as the coming of the Blessed Virgin and those accompanying her.
It is simply speculation and silliness to turn this passage into some kind of a 'denouncement' of the Blessed Virgin, and what's more, I find it heart-breaking that we go out of our way to slander the Holy Mother just so we can have ourselves a nice bowl of 'Protest-ant' stew.
c. Mary's Treasuring
Again, let's let Scripture talk. Do phrases like 'Mary treasured [stored up] all these things in her heart' ring any bells? They should, because they are in the Pre-reconciled idol, the Holy Scriptures. In the Nativity story, Mary does seem to be observing and aware of the events taking place around her.
3. 'The notion of putting Mary on such a lofty pedestal is a perversion of original New Testament Christianity.'
Instead of merely reposting quotes, I'll offer the following link. These are from the writings of early Church leaders, some of the earliest writings:
http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2006/05/marian_theology_in_the_early_c.html
I would also offer these quotes from St. Ephrem, which are from writings pre-373 (that is, before the dogma of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the two natures of Christ had been completely hammered out[2]):
'You alone and Your Mother are good in every way; for there is no blemish in Thee, my Lord, and no stain in Thy Mother.'
-Nisibene Hymns, 27:8[3]
'O virgin lady, immaculate Mother of God, my lady most glorious, most gracious, higher than heaven, much purer than the sun's splendor, rays, or light . . . you bore God and the Word according to the flesh, preserving your virginity before childbirth, a virgin after childbirth.'
-From 'Prayer to the Most Holy Mother of God'[3]
4. Ahistorical Infallibility
Ultimately and not surprisingly, these 'Scriptural' objections to Marian theology are the fruit of Pre-reconciled/'Protest-ant' theology; by a fruit you shall know the tree, so to speak. First the Pre-reconciled groups divorced 'man's traditions' (i.e. the Roman Catholic ones) from Scripture to save Scripture, but now (with no historical context remaining) we see that this divorce has disfigured even the reading of Scripture. The believer 'as a priest' ultimately becomes the new pope, and so we witness the ridiculous 'ahistorical' reading (i.e. a reading devoid of historical context) of Scripture.
I call it the doctrine of ahistorical infallibility, and this will be addressed in the next entry. 'I don't see that in the Bible' . . . basically, nevermind what all the early Christian writers left for us. Somehow there exists this untenable notion that the Pre-reconciled person's reading of the Bible - isolated in her/his closet - will somehow be more reflective of 'New Testament Christianity' (an abstract principle) than the people who were closer to the life of Jesus Christ and His apostles and actually were the New Testament Church. Our cavalier arrogance, when considered, astounds me.
[1]G80, Strong's Number 80
[2]Dave Armstrong
[3]cited from Dave Armstrong, cited from Hilda Graef's Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion (London: Sheed & Ward, 1965)
-Rick
13 February 2008
Reason to Not Become Catholic, Part III.A.: Mary and Reverence
. . . Perhaps a synopsis will be helpful. . .
This entry will be the first of three regarding the 'issue' of Mary, the saints, and the angels. I'm going to take Mary as the example/subject for consideration, since the objections toward the saints and angels are the same objections as that with Mary (often even to a lesser extent than with Mary). In this first entry, I will (1) address Mary's exalted position (a.k.a. 'worshipped position'), (2) explain why Catholics can lift Mary[/saints] up and still be anything but idolatrous (in a general sense . . . statues, ikons, etc. will be addressed in the third entry), and (3) address prayer to Mary[/saints] for what it really is.
In the next entry, I will (1) continue the consideration of Mary's honour by offering quotes/links of early Marian considerations (to show that this was not some kind of 12th-century 'add-on' to 'original' Christianity), and (2) address Scriptural objections to the teaching of Mary's upright character and perpetual virginity.
In the third entry, I'll (1) tackle the issue of statues, ikons, etc. in relation to idolatry and then (2) end with with the conclusion that the Pre-reconciled peoples have invented a completely novel, baseless approach to the Blessed Virgin.
1. 'The Catholic Church worships Mary.'
(or)
'The Catholic Church places far too much emphasis on Mary.'
As to that first objection - that the Catholic Church worships the Blessed Virgin - I call to mind the words of my pre-reconciled professor Dr. Spaulding in a class session last semester, 'Give me a break! You don't survive for 2,000 years by being polytheistic and pretending to be something else.' But this will be discussed more fully in the third entry on this subject.
As to the second objection (which seems to be more widely held), I call to mind what various Catholics have replied to me (most notably Father Baker in his development of the argument), 'Catholics lift Mary up so much because, well, God did.' Say whatever you want to say about what Mary may or may not have been (or what she is and isn't), God did choose her to be His mother.
If the Catholic Church puts far too much emphasis on the Blessed Virgin, Christians everywhere should probably find a different book than the Bible to read as Scripture. The first half of the Hail Mary is from Luke's Gospel story. The angel hails Mary as 'full of grace' or (even in the conservative rendering) 'highly favoured one.' Elizabeth responds to Mary's greeting with 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this come to pass, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?' (Luke 1:43). Maybe St. Luke was a little tainted, like St. James in his 'works-based salvation' theology, and we should just toss both books out in order to save the Faith. Then again, we're ignoring the allusion of St. John in Revelation 11 to 'the woman clothed in the sun, feet on the moon' who is pregnant with a Son - a woman whom John accentuates in the drama as the Ark of the Covenant. We're also overlooking Jesus' last bit of 'business' in John 19:25-27. Maybe we should edit most of this kind of stuff out of the New Testament in large doses, since we're apparently not reading it.
Furthermore (and here is the real clencher, no matter what one's stand on the issue it): everything praiseworthy about the Blessed Virgin (ah-hem: note that title!) is wrapped up in the glory of God. This isn't a stage with the Blessed Virgin and Jesus Christ vying for attention; Mary's story is involved completely in Jesus' (as should ours be). Christ is the example of the Christian life and we should embody the same Spirit in Him, but our Faith speaks of one who did just that: Mary the Blessed Virgin. She submitted completely to the identity and mission God had for her, and she faithfully embraced her identity and the mission He had given her. This is the Spirit that was in Christ and what we are all being shaped into; she is the Type and Mother of our Christian life. She is the new Eve. That deserves at least a tip of the hat, to say the crud of the least.
2. 'This focus on Mary - doesn't it just draw attention away from God?'
I'm sure it could, theoretically, but so could anything else that is praiseworthy. The reality of the Incarnation, however, suggests a sanctification that doesn't 'ditch' troublesome areas but instead fills all areas with a plenitude, embracing and perfecting it. That is, we can hide in a shoe box somewhere to avoid sin, but we're not really living the fullness of the Christian life.
This objection could be the centre of the entire problem: those who are Pre-reconciliation have a misunderstanding of the King's court. As Patrick Madrid or Marcus Grodi put it (to be honest, I forget who it was of the two who offered the illustration), without realising the result, the pre-reconciled describe a King of Kings who is not really that easy to worship in the first place. Worship is, in fact, dubious and almost a joke. He doesn't really seem that kingly; he seems more like a Gnostic, abstract principle - an isolated ion (okay, so I'm embellishing the illustration). This is a king sitting in a concrete room with no decorations, who has no servants around his throne (or, if he does, they are dressed very shabbily), while he himself is dressed in the most royal of clothing.
The Catholic rendering of the King of Kings is a loving God, who hasn't bottled up all the glory in His person. The Catholic King of Kings is based completely in the notion of the Triune Life of God, who created the world with an artistic, selfless outpouring of love and grace. This King (not unlike how even earthly kings truly are/were) lavishes everything in his power with richness and splendour, making the throne-room glitter and clothing all His servants in the finest garments (jewels and gold involved). Of course the queenly Woman sitting next to the King is enough to bring you to your knees in fearful reverence, but all of the court's glory (even the Queen's) is radiating from the lavish glory of the King.
The Incarnation is indeed a portrait of God, and this is not a God who told us, 'Hey, don't capitalise the title of my "Secretary of State" because that takes the spotlight off Me.' God revealed Himself to be Love and died for us, forsaking His throne to become one of us. Furthermore (along the lines of this same, unchanging character of His) God has lavished His grace upon His Church, the Holy Mother, and His Creation, and He doesn't seem nearly concerned with vying for the spotlight (perhaps because there isn't a struggle in the first place). Once the Pre-reconciled soul can embrace this understanding of the Kingdom, the praise of the Blessed Virgin, the martyrs, the saints, and the angels comes naturally.
3. 'Beautiful, beautiful - except that the Catholic Church PRAYS to Mary. That is unacceptable.'
a. Actual Prayers vs. Pre-reconciled Notions of Catholic Prayers
Again, this objection is a Pre-reconciliation misunderstanding of what prayer is and means. Refer to the last paragraph of the last point of discussion, and let's look at the 'Satanic' and so very ominous 'Hail Mary' prayer (pay careful attention to what is actually being said in the prayer):
'Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.'
How scandalous. The first half-and-change of the prayer is from Scripture, describing Mary for who she is. This is not unusual in Catholic prayer, nor should it be; it announces who it is we're addressing and expresses praise for the person's character. This is a formal address. Notice, however, the part that I've placed in bold - the actual petition. I will, if any reader would like, put more and more prayers to the saints on here to demonstrate the point clearly:
All prayer to anyone but God is prayer for intercession. Angels are a technicality, but the prayer for 'defence' or 'taking up the cause' is also prayer for intercession in one of the ways that angels do intercede.
That's right: the Hail Mary is quite simply 'Holy Mother, please pray for us sinners.' This is not unlike asking a friend to pray for us, which reminds me of another objection along this vein of thought. . .
b. 'But why even seek this distracting emphasis? And why pray to the dead anyway?'
-Which is why none of us ever 'distracts' ourselves by asking for the prayers of those brothers and sisters in the Faith who are around us. If we are going to petition those around us to pray for/with us, it is completely ridiculous to nix petition to those who are presently in the throne room of God. As Father Baker noted one day, 'Actually, the saints are much more alive than we are.' Heaven is not 'where dead people go'; heaven is where those who have died have become even more alive, as they are within the very Heart of God. Not only is it 'okay' to petition the Blessed Virgin and the saints for our prayers, but it is foolish to do anything otherwise.
-Rick
This entry will be the first of three regarding the 'issue' of Mary, the saints, and the angels. I'm going to take Mary as the example/subject for consideration, since the objections toward the saints and angels are the same objections as that with Mary (often even to a lesser extent than with Mary). In this first entry, I will (1) address Mary's exalted position (a.k.a. 'worshipped position'), (2) explain why Catholics can lift Mary[/saints] up and still be anything but idolatrous (in a general sense . . . statues, ikons, etc. will be addressed in the third entry), and (3) address prayer to Mary[/saints] for what it really is.
In the next entry, I will (1) continue the consideration of Mary's honour by offering quotes/links of early Marian considerations (to show that this was not some kind of 12th-century 'add-on' to 'original' Christianity), and (2) address Scriptural objections to the teaching of Mary's upright character and perpetual virginity.
In the third entry, I'll (1) tackle the issue of statues, ikons, etc. in relation to idolatry and then (2) end with with the conclusion that the Pre-reconciled peoples have invented a completely novel, baseless approach to the Blessed Virgin.
1. 'The Catholic Church worships Mary.'
(or)
'The Catholic Church places far too much emphasis on Mary.'
As to that first objection - that the Catholic Church worships the Blessed Virgin - I call to mind the words of my pre-reconciled professor Dr. Spaulding in a class session last semester, 'Give me a break! You don't survive for 2,000 years by being polytheistic and pretending to be something else.' But this will be discussed more fully in the third entry on this subject.
As to the second objection (which seems to be more widely held), I call to mind what various Catholics have replied to me (most notably Father Baker in his development of the argument), 'Catholics lift Mary up so much because, well, God did.' Say whatever you want to say about what Mary may or may not have been (or what she is and isn't), God did choose her to be His mother.
If the Catholic Church puts far too much emphasis on the Blessed Virgin, Christians everywhere should probably find a different book than the Bible to read as Scripture. The first half of the Hail Mary is from Luke's Gospel story. The angel hails Mary as 'full of grace' or (even in the conservative rendering) 'highly favoured one.' Elizabeth responds to Mary's greeting with 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this come to pass, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?' (Luke 1:43). Maybe St. Luke was a little tainted, like St. James in his 'works-based salvation' theology, and we should just toss both books out in order to save the Faith. Then again, we're ignoring the allusion of St. John in Revelation 11 to 'the woman clothed in the sun, feet on the moon' who is pregnant with a Son - a woman whom John accentuates in the drama as the Ark of the Covenant. We're also overlooking Jesus' last bit of 'business' in John 19:25-27. Maybe we should edit most of this kind of stuff out of the New Testament in large doses, since we're apparently not reading it.
Furthermore (and here is the real clencher, no matter what one's stand on the issue it): everything praiseworthy about the Blessed Virgin (ah-hem: note that title!) is wrapped up in the glory of God. This isn't a stage with the Blessed Virgin and Jesus Christ vying for attention; Mary's story is involved completely in Jesus' (as should ours be). Christ is the example of the Christian life and we should embody the same Spirit in Him, but our Faith speaks of one who did just that: Mary the Blessed Virgin. She submitted completely to the identity and mission God had for her, and she faithfully embraced her identity and the mission He had given her. This is the Spirit that was in Christ and what we are all being shaped into; she is the Type and Mother of our Christian life. She is the new Eve. That deserves at least a tip of the hat, to say the crud of the least.
2. 'This focus on Mary - doesn't it just draw attention away from God?'
I'm sure it could, theoretically, but so could anything else that is praiseworthy. The reality of the Incarnation, however, suggests a sanctification that doesn't 'ditch' troublesome areas but instead fills all areas with a plenitude, embracing and perfecting it. That is, we can hide in a shoe box somewhere to avoid sin, but we're not really living the fullness of the Christian life.
This objection could be the centre of the entire problem: those who are Pre-reconciliation have a misunderstanding of the King's court. As Patrick Madrid or Marcus Grodi put it (to be honest, I forget who it was of the two who offered the illustration), without realising the result, the pre-reconciled describe a King of Kings who is not really that easy to worship in the first place. Worship is, in fact, dubious and almost a joke. He doesn't really seem that kingly; he seems more like a Gnostic, abstract principle - an isolated ion (okay, so I'm embellishing the illustration). This is a king sitting in a concrete room with no decorations, who has no servants around his throne (or, if he does, they are dressed very shabbily), while he himself is dressed in the most royal of clothing.
The Catholic rendering of the King of Kings is a loving God, who hasn't bottled up all the glory in His person. The Catholic King of Kings is based completely in the notion of the Triune Life of God, who created the world with an artistic, selfless outpouring of love and grace. This King (not unlike how even earthly kings truly are/were) lavishes everything in his power with richness and splendour, making the throne-room glitter and clothing all His servants in the finest garments (jewels and gold involved). Of course the queenly Woman sitting next to the King is enough to bring you to your knees in fearful reverence, but all of the court's glory (even the Queen's) is radiating from the lavish glory of the King.
The Incarnation is indeed a portrait of God, and this is not a God who told us, 'Hey, don't capitalise the title of my "Secretary of State" because that takes the spotlight off Me.' God revealed Himself to be Love and died for us, forsaking His throne to become one of us. Furthermore (along the lines of this same, unchanging character of His) God has lavished His grace upon His Church, the Holy Mother, and His Creation, and He doesn't seem nearly concerned with vying for the spotlight (perhaps because there isn't a struggle in the first place). Once the Pre-reconciled soul can embrace this understanding of the Kingdom, the praise of the Blessed Virgin, the martyrs, the saints, and the angels comes naturally.
3. 'Beautiful, beautiful - except that the Catholic Church PRAYS to Mary. That is unacceptable.'
a. Actual Prayers vs. Pre-reconciled Notions of Catholic Prayers
Again, this objection is a Pre-reconciliation misunderstanding of what prayer is and means. Refer to the last paragraph of the last point of discussion, and let's look at the 'Satanic' and so very ominous 'Hail Mary' prayer (pay careful attention to what is actually being said in the prayer):
'Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.'
How scandalous. The first half-and-change of the prayer is from Scripture, describing Mary for who she is. This is not unusual in Catholic prayer, nor should it be; it announces who it is we're addressing and expresses praise for the person's character. This is a formal address. Notice, however, the part that I've placed in bold - the actual petition. I will, if any reader would like, put more and more prayers to the saints on here to demonstrate the point clearly:
All prayer to anyone but God is prayer for intercession. Angels are a technicality, but the prayer for 'defence' or 'taking up the cause' is also prayer for intercession in one of the ways that angels do intercede.
That's right: the Hail Mary is quite simply 'Holy Mother, please pray for us sinners.' This is not unlike asking a friend to pray for us, which reminds me of another objection along this vein of thought. . .
b. 'But why even seek this distracting emphasis? And why pray to the dead anyway?'
-Which is why none of us ever 'distracts' ourselves by asking for the prayers of those brothers and sisters in the Faith who are around us. If we are going to petition those around us to pray for/with us, it is completely ridiculous to nix petition to those who are presently in the throne room of God. As Father Baker noted one day, 'Actually, the saints are much more alive than we are.' Heaven is not 'where dead people go'; heaven is where those who have died have become even more alive, as they are within the very Heart of God. Not only is it 'okay' to petition the Blessed Virgin and the saints for our prayers, but it is foolish to do anything otherwise.
-Rick
10 February 2008
Rite of Election (a Chiasm)
[As with all chiasms, the middle is the pinnacle]
'All your kind they're coming clean
They shut their eyes, their mess, their scenes. . .'
-From K.C. Accidental by Broken Social Scene
The epiphany
Struck me
Today
In staring at the crucifix
Above the Body of our Lord
(His Kingdom come):
History
Is no abstract fatality;
His very wrists were truly pierced;
He truly drank His cup with Jewish wrists, feet, side.
Before His mighty triumph
In His mighty triumph
He truly bled.
I
My life has historically
Been an unfolding
Of estranged dying,
Hardening into a polished crystal
Until cool to the touch and smooth,
A sputtering so as to not stammer,
A forgetting to not remember,
A dying down, a
Dying.
Writing
This, I admit
All these stitches by which
I've begun to unhinge my inside
By
The seams:
I've become a
Dr. of bandages.
. . .That is to say, specifically:
(And here stitches prick and itch in their release
As they catch on my hardened skin)
You broke my body in half, [name omitted],
The blood draining from my face and soul,
Lifeless gut flopping inside
When you rejected me
Rejected me with a public parade
And our friends laughed at how silly
I had looked
How I warbled in pursuing
('Look
At how funny he looks when he runs-!')
And you all laughed at me, my antics;
So I practised.
I worked on stitching and wishing
To Hope to pursue other girls someday.
I tightened
Tightened
The skin over my heart and wounded knees
Until few would ever see me again.
I refused to bleed again.
. . .That is to say, in another example:
You left me in a warehouse, [name omitted],
After insulting my wits or lack therein
And I caused you
Far too much grief,
So you took me off the forklift
And bruised me repeatedly
Repeatedly
Broke my body badly;
So I stuck my tongue out in concentration-
Not at you, at my concentration-
And I wouldn't again let superiours see my pain,
Because it hurt you.
You mocked me repeatedly;
I shut the doors to
Authorities,
Celebrities,
Family.
I refused to bleed.
This
Has historically been a
Not bleeding,
A pleading in hurried slush under my breath
While continually dressing it up
For the bleeding to stop;
I've clinged
To the mangled clay left of me
While managing to die that ridiculous
Protestant 'Death'
-A dyed Buddhist annihilation-
And bandages rolls and rolls of
Bandages
Wrapped in intricate trappings, patternings,
And I refused to bleed.
[Girl], [Manager], and perhaps best seen
In you, the church-planters,
With our upside-down doctrines floated
Topside by the smiling Popes.
I ventured
I ventured criticism,
But the entire parade was throwing candy
And scowls, so
I would not bleed.
. . .It was the aftermath, and
In one rendering of the story,
You had said, 'Follow Me,'
Which I knew implied
Finally dying
-Not denying the evil in its ghastly woundings,
But trusting
Taking
Up my smaller cross behind, beside Thee
As a thief
Of sorts
And bleeding,
Finally trusting, finally bleeding
Again . . .
II
Lip-quivering,
Arm spasm delivering
Joy
Is building
Building within me;
I'm waiting
I'm waiting.
He who
Gave His life to
Save ours prayed
For us to be united as one
-He in Father, Father in Him,
And us in Spirit in Him-
And He
Said, 'If any forsakes
'His house and family
'And tricycle routes for Me,
'He will bleed
'He will bleed again,
'But find
'His life, home, family,
'Bicycle routes.'
Joy
Is building
Within me;
I'm waiting,
I'm waiting for
Easter morning.
III
I've historically wished,
I wish now
Our Empires would
Just go ahead and finish the job
And croak.
I say that not light-heartedly or
Claiming for me immunity or
Forsaking good bandages foolishly
If they may help;
However, how ever we
Breathe while we are not so keen on being a breathing people;
However we bandage, we are an ever-bleeding people,
Ourselves bleeding and bleeding others,
And we refuse to bleed
Refuse to admit any bleeding
Except the bleeding we can't hide but still bandage
Though bleeding
Bleeding all over our sterile coasters, conversation pieces, carriages.
Hearses-
There are hearses everywhere
-To take all the unwanted and forsaken
(post-mortum, post-conception, pre-conception, pre-nuptials)
-To bury all our pet injustices against our spouses and neighbour
-To applaud social renovations, reasoned erasor rubber to the Invisibles
And out the door with the poor or repentance
. . .Repentance?! Hearses
Are dressed in business suits Sunday clothes
Or like ice-cream delivery trucks
So we don't run our blood cold:
The Invisible Holocaust
So as not to stain our teeth and lifestyles.
Basically, I pray something like:
Save us, O Lord, and
Please be merciful to us, but
Thy Kingdom come and will be done;
We've stubbornly brewed a bowl of judgment for us,
And I would that this cup would pass
-Yet not our ever-bandaging will
But Your will be done.
Amen.
He truly bled for our transgressions;
In His triumph there we are truly healed.
Before His triumph,
He truly drank this cup,
And His wrists were openly pierced;
For history
Is no abstract fatality.
-Rick
'All your kind they're coming clean
They shut their eyes, their mess, their scenes. . .'
-From K.C. Accidental by Broken Social Scene
The epiphany
Struck me
Today
In staring at the crucifix
Above the Body of our Lord
(His Kingdom come):
History
Is no abstract fatality;
His very wrists were truly pierced;
He truly drank His cup with Jewish wrists, feet, side.
Before His mighty triumph
In His mighty triumph
He truly bled.
I
My life has historically
Been an unfolding
Of estranged dying,
Hardening into a polished crystal
Until cool to the touch and smooth,
A sputtering so as to not stammer,
A forgetting to not remember,
A dying down, a
Dying.
Writing
This, I admit
All these stitches by which
I've begun to unhinge my inside
By
The seams:
I've become a
Dr. of bandages.
. . .That is to say, specifically:
(And here stitches prick and itch in their release
As they catch on my hardened skin)
You broke my body in half, [name omitted],
The blood draining from my face and soul,
Lifeless gut flopping inside
When you rejected me
Rejected me with a public parade
And our friends laughed at how silly
I had looked
How I warbled in pursuing
('Look
At how funny he looks when he runs-!')
And you all laughed at me, my antics;
So I practised.
I worked on stitching and wishing
To Hope to pursue other girls someday.
I tightened
Tightened
The skin over my heart and wounded knees
Until few would ever see me again.
I refused to bleed again.
. . .That is to say, in another example:
You left me in a warehouse, [name omitted],
After insulting my wits or lack therein
And I caused you
Far too much grief,
So you took me off the forklift
And bruised me repeatedly
Repeatedly
Broke my body badly;
So I stuck my tongue out in concentration-
Not at you, at my concentration-
And I wouldn't again let superiours see my pain,
Because it hurt you.
You mocked me repeatedly;
I shut the doors to
Authorities,
Celebrities,
Family.
I refused to bleed.
This
Has historically been a
Not bleeding,
A pleading in hurried slush under my breath
While continually dressing it up
For the bleeding to stop;
I've clinged
To the mangled clay left of me
While managing to die that ridiculous
Protestant 'Death'
-A dyed Buddhist annihilation-
And bandages rolls and rolls of
Bandages
Wrapped in intricate trappings, patternings,
And I refused to bleed.
[Girl], [Manager], and perhaps best seen
In you, the church-planters,
With our upside-down doctrines floated
Topside by the smiling Popes.
I ventured
I ventured criticism,
But the entire parade was throwing candy
And scowls, so
I would not bleed.
. . .It was the aftermath, and
In one rendering of the story,
You had said, 'Follow Me,'
Which I knew implied
Finally dying
-Not denying the evil in its ghastly woundings,
But trusting
Taking
Up my smaller cross behind, beside Thee
As a thief
Of sorts
And bleeding,
Finally trusting, finally bleeding
Again . . .
II
Lip-quivering,
Arm spasm delivering
Joy
Is building
Building within me;
I'm waiting
I'm waiting.
He who
Gave His life to
Save ours prayed
For us to be united as one
-He in Father, Father in Him,
And us in Spirit in Him-
And He
Said, 'If any forsakes
'His house and family
'And tricycle routes for Me,
'He will bleed
'He will bleed again,
'But find
'His life, home, family,
'Bicycle routes.'
Joy
Is building
Within me;
I'm waiting,
I'm waiting for
Easter morning.
III
I've historically wished,
I wish now
Our Empires would
Just go ahead and finish the job
And croak.
I say that not light-heartedly or
Claiming for me immunity or
Forsaking good bandages foolishly
If they may help;
However, how ever we
Breathe while we are not so keen on being a breathing people;
However we bandage, we are an ever-bleeding people,
Ourselves bleeding and bleeding others,
And we refuse to bleed
Refuse to admit any bleeding
Except the bleeding we can't hide but still bandage
Though bleeding
Bleeding all over our sterile coasters, conversation pieces, carriages.
Hearses-
There are hearses everywhere
-To take all the unwanted and forsaken
(post-mortum, post-conception, pre-conception, pre-nuptials)
-To bury all our pet injustices against our spouses and neighbour
-To applaud social renovations, reasoned erasor rubber to the Invisibles
And out the door with the poor or repentance
. . .Repentance?! Hearses
Are dressed in business suits Sunday clothes
Or like ice-cream delivery trucks
So we don't run our blood cold:
The Invisible Holocaust
So as not to stain our teeth and lifestyles.
Basically, I pray something like:
Save us, O Lord, and
Please be merciful to us, but
Thy Kingdom come and will be done;
We've stubbornly brewed a bowl of judgment for us,
And I would that this cup would pass
-Yet not our ever-bandaging will
But Your will be done.
Amen.
He truly bled for our transgressions;
In His triumph there we are truly healed.
Before His triumph,
He truly drank this cup,
And His wrists were openly pierced;
For history
Is no abstract fatality.
-Rick
09 February 2008
From the Grave
In looking for a resource page among the wreckage of my undergraduate filing cabinet, I stumbled upon this article in the debris; this is from several years ago, when I was studying Nazarene history and polity:
'
. . .Increasingly, we hear that our assignment is not to make Nazarenes but to win persons to Christ. There is partial truth in the claim, but it is an unbalanced assertion. Those who make it may be applauded for seeking to avoid sectarianism and escape mere institutionalism. But it overlooks the incarnational element of our faith. When Jesus came to earth, He became a part of a particular nation and people—Israel—while at the same time proclaiming a universal gospel (i.e., for all peoples everywhere).
'The Jesus people of the 1960s became a strong, but fleeting, voice in society. While some of their causes have influenced the thought processes and perspectives of succeeding cultures and decades, as a unit or as a united force they are no longer a significant power in America at the close of the century and the beginning of the new millennium. Why is this true? It is true primarily because they would have virtually nothing to do with the institutional or organized or historic Church of Jesus Christ! Consequently their group has dissipated, their voice has been silenced, and their influence minimized. One of the Early Church fathers [St. Cyprian] said, "No man can have God for his Father who will not have the Church for his mother."'
-John A. Knight, former General Superintendent, from his 'Bridge to Our Tomorrows'
http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/administration/centennial/history/heritage/display.aspx
. . .Almost you would make me a Christian, Dr. Knight.
-Rick
'
. . .Increasingly, we hear that our assignment is not to make Nazarenes but to win persons to Christ. There is partial truth in the claim, but it is an unbalanced assertion. Those who make it may be applauded for seeking to avoid sectarianism and escape mere institutionalism. But it overlooks the incarnational element of our faith. When Jesus came to earth, He became a part of a particular nation and people—Israel—while at the same time proclaiming a universal gospel (i.e., for all peoples everywhere).'The Jesus people of the 1960s became a strong, but fleeting, voice in society. While some of their causes have influenced the thought processes and perspectives of succeeding cultures and decades, as a unit or as a united force they are no longer a significant power in America at the close of the century and the beginning of the new millennium. Why is this true? It is true primarily because they would have virtually nothing to do with the institutional or organized or historic Church of Jesus Christ! Consequently their group has dissipated, their voice has been silenced, and their influence minimized. One of the Early Church fathers [St. Cyprian] said, "No man can have God for his Father who will not have the Church for his mother."'
-John A. Knight, former General Superintendent, from his 'Bridge to Our Tomorrows'
http://www.nazarene.org
. . .Almost you would make me a Christian, Dr. Knight.
-Rick
Catholic Scandals
'I'm not sure if this fits into the area of hypocrisy so much as being an offshoot of a more serious matter, but do you plan to approach any historical failures of the church? By that I mean times in the history of the CC where doctrine was waylaid for the sake of greed - indulgences (always a biggie in these discussions), crusades, general power struggles between kings & Rome. Big topics - not even sure if they're easily addressable, but i'm intrigued by those in particular because i've been taking Church History classes here at my Baptist college & I'm all too aware of the slant. I really need to do some research into the Catholic perspective on this history. Curious if you ever have.'
Yes, I have researched these topics in seeking to be reconciled with the Church. These issues you mention are actually excellent topics to explore, Laura; I'm probably going to take you up on that exploration, but not anytime in the near future (for reasons mentioned in the previous entry :-)).
Here is a good place to start your search:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/inquisition-crusades-catholic-scandals.html
I would also like to point out that many of the Protestant objections to Catholic abuses are completely unfair; squatting around in a puddle of a hyper-individualised, decentralised, and nihilistic/semi-Manichean version of Christianity (not to mention also harbouring similar controversies/abuses), many Protestants and Protestant groups begin launching attacks on historical Catholicism - that is, back upon a time when Christianity was something that had such a sway as to be central to any understanding (even one arrived at incorrectly) of human existence (i.e. the Kingdom of God was the central model for earthly kingdom). Everything and anything done in the historic Europe/Mediterranean region was done by Christian people, because Christ was understood to be King. There are no Protestant Crusades because, well, Protestants can't really unite on just about anything (though the secular 'war in Iraq' could be seen as a sort of perverted 'venting' of such efforts). So I find such vitriolic critiques of 'those horrible Crusades' and such to be aggravating and hilarious, in that they are something like that of the homeless and lazy grasshopper standing outside the situation and chiding an entire ant hill when some horrible tunneling brings the ant hill to a collapse. That is to say: at least Catholic peoples did attempt to do something in relation to Christianity, even failing sometimes and in some regards, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of Protestantism (in this neo-pagan era it has ignorantly allowed/christened for us).
...So, basically, yes, that's my gut/sheerly-emotional reaction to the sound-byte synopses of Catholic scandals: one shouldn't so blithely and happily rebuke the historical choices of others (1) when one suffers from the same basic disease as the defendant and (2) when one doesn't even have the option of having that responsibility and making such large choices because one's faith tradition is so disjointed.
'I think a necessary distinction to be made is that between Catholic behaviour and the behaviour of Catholics. Perhaps this seems to be hair-splitting, but it is worth considering that the hypocrisy of a Catholic lies not in whether or not he or she commits sins or scandalous activity, but rather if that same person insists on his own innocence before God. Just because a person who is a member of any Church or ecclesial community sins doesn't make them a hypocrite; It makes them a sinner. One of the great glories of the Catholic Church is that in its Sacraments, Christ has instituted the means of purification and grace into the world. So i would encourage you not to consider this deviant behaviour as "hypocrisy" but rather as what it is...sin. Then, one can BEGIN to contemplate hypocrisy based upon the subject in question. But if that same person is kneeling in the confessional the next morning pleading to God to forgive him and indicting himself, it is hardly just to call him a hypocrite. Guilty, weak, sinful: yes...a hypocrite: that is dangerous territory. This is why the Church refers so often to scandal. I believe that is what you are referring to here, scandal. Not necessarily hypocrisy. But as always, we must err on the side of mercy, especially when it comes to such serious allegations as hypocrisy.'
You're right, Terry. And even what I have so vaguely labeled as 'hypocrisy' is often nothing of the case . . . it is simply something of a falling short, which does ring differently. Also, as I've said in a previous entry, (1) I've noticed that Protestant (at least, Nazarene) falling short seems to be just as prominent among members, but it is more 'hush hush' than I have witnessed among Catholics, and (2) most of the 'hypocrisy' - or falling short - I've heard about is generally a Protestant misunderstanding Christianity (e.g. 'They were drinking alcohol with friends on Saturday night and were in church the next morning!!').
Thanks for your clarification; I think it's brought an edge to this consideration that I had let slip.
-Rick
06 February 2008
Lofty and 'Reader Response'
So I think up and commit to these 'entry series' generally in the worst possible times of my life. There is too much on my plate already. However, I will plod through it, since this is my sort of 'rough draft' attempt at making cases of this sort - cases like, for instance, the Nazarene Theses project on Facebook. Hopefully I will have some time to work on that before the 2008 General Assembly (seriously doubtful at this point).
Hard as I try, these entry series - geez, entries in general - end up being my setting out with a vision in mind and (typically) ending up somewhere else. It obviously helps (as with the Nazarene Theses project) to have other voices to add context. In this case, I approached hypocrisy as the least challenging of the arguments; RomanIbis's Catholic reflection on Catholic hypocrisy/falling-short, however, helped me to remember that this is indeed an issue just as detracting for some as the 'Mary-worship' arguments are for others. Actually, in considering the entry, it occurred to me that several of my acquaintances who would convert to Catholicism with relative theological ease are disenchanted by Catholic behaviour. I hope I'm being fair to both parties involved here; some reports of 'Catholic hypocrisy' are far too vague, focused, or sensationalised to take seriously, whereas completely overlooking the reality of hypocrisy in the Catholic Church is dishonest and detached.
With that said, I don't felt I gave hypocrisy enough weight in the entry.
-a-
Hard as I try, these entry series - geez, entries in general - end up being my setting out with a vision in mind and (typically) ending up somewhere else. It obviously helps (as with the Nazarene Theses project) to have other voices to add context. In this case, I approached hypocrisy as the least challenging of the arguments; RomanIbis's Catholic reflection on Catholic hypocrisy/falling-short, however, helped me to remember that this is indeed an issue just as detracting for some as the 'Mary-worship' arguments are for others. Actually, in considering the entry, it occurred to me that several of my acquaintances who would convert to Catholicism with relative theological ease are disenchanted by Catholic behaviour. I hope I'm being fair to both parties involved here; some reports of 'Catholic hypocrisy' are far too vague, focused, or sensationalised to take seriously, whereas completely overlooking the reality of hypocrisy in the Catholic Church is dishonest and detached.
With that said, I don't felt I gave hypocrisy enough weight in the entry.
-a-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)