After forty decades of wandering Western brush-heaps,
The viper, the thief, the beating sun,
Dancing like the Dionysian cults who 'really felt the moving Spirit,'
And the blank adobe huts
Left bringing in the husks of sheaves
Left arms left shriveled in shivering sleeves
-Starvation visits.
The bread we left at Zion is wearing on our guts,
And we, wearing our pangs on our sleeves,
Grope for thorns or nails for sins to the crosses
To resurrect the Saviour, to birth Him in our hallowed halls,
To incarnate Ba'al.
So after this, our exile, show
Unto us the fruit of Thee, Womb.
For we have no bread in these huts
(There where there are no mothers, no tables, no cups)
And, gnawing, return to earth's womb.
O injured, O violated, O sweet
Mother Earth:
Pray for us, Mother of gods,
For we erect Thy May-pole in the Quad.
-Rick
06 March 2008
04 March 2008
Entire Sanctification, Confirmation, and St. Francis de Sales
I'm hoping to eventually write some kind of an entry showing the eery connection between the Nazarene doctrine (Article of Faith X) of entire sanctification and the Sacrament of Confirmation; additionally, and even more eerily, there are significant connections to be made between the strenuously scientific while vaguely mystical 'entire sanctification' and the purgative writings of St. Francis de Sales. For now I can only write about writing about this and provide a sort of 'nexus' for thinking about this stuff; hopefully I will eventually have time (after schoolwork, the entry series, and the Nazarene Theses) to follow up on this.
Article X: Entire Sanctification
The Sacrament of Confirmation
St. Francis de Sales;
St. Francis's theology of 'entire sanctification'
-Rick
Article X: Entire Sanctification
The Sacrament of Confirmation
St. Francis de Sales;
St. Francis's theology of 'entire sanctification'
-Rick
02 March 2008
Attempt
This will be talking out loud on paper; maybe someone can break in and restore something of a conversational sanity. I'm utterly unsure where to begin and end and it all goes around in circles for me.
Morality has been historically splintered from praxis, praxis still employs shreds of the morality behind it, and ultimately we have to work with what we have. As an example: capitalism is the historical fruit of a number of various interweaving ideologies and beliefs (a number of which are literally theologically heretical and - as heresy tends to go - dangerous to society), and now capitalism has become something of an historical concrete and branched into all its various ideologies and historical realities that have anchored and branched into others; and we have a drug-addict of a society that is tearing itself apart at the seams (this is true even on an 'a-theological' level, as if there is such a thing, in that we are most unhappy to watch jobs being outsourced and large corporations/government taking drug-addict life of its own, etc.). And so on in countless other examples of the same. We seem to be turning to the environment and human rights as the last bit of solid ground for agreement and action, the last clump of sand we can actually hold in our hands and salvage. Can our contemporary Western, 'First-world' culture be salvaged from its confusion and nominalism? -Or is it propre to rend our robes and allow the destruction to run its full course - that is, is that the Father's judgment and balm?
Foreign policy, military force overseas, Bush vs. Obama, 'bring the troops back', 'finish the job', etc. - I would argue what America did in World War II, speaking on the whole as a cause, was noble and right. Beyond that, I heartily agree that modern, secular communism was and has been a horrible reality, but I'm still very unsure even at that point what America's role is in the world; I guess you ride whatever horse will carry the day over the evil of our time etc. However, in our developing foreign policy since then, we have become the policemen of the world. Is it really America's 'job' to have military bases throughout the world? Which came first, the chicken or the egg - the Middle Eastern hatred for the United States or the United States' active involvement in the Middle East? Are we waging these wars because the Church is no longer offering something of a historical framework for crusades? In writing all this (thinking it through), I'm tending to think that America's foreign policy in the Cold War in the specifics of funding 'proxy wars' were horribly wrong and ultimately judgment-bearing decisions.
It's a cat's cradle, every strand interweaving with another. Pull one, and three or four more are tangled; untangle the three or four, and you're back where you began. In recent centuries arose again the pagan storyline of the world being an essentially violent place (where the basic essence of existence is self-preservation, and the only way for peace is to threaten enough potential violence). Consider ancient Rome and the Greek city-states and their mottos, and then look at our city-states and proverbs. We've bought the line and abandoned the narrative of Christianity, which did/does not overlook violence/evil (and doesn't even condemn violence that seeks to proprely defend that which is worth defending) but does describe the central essence of Being as the Trinity - a creative, inclusive harmony. 'Say that to the terrorists.' Well, that's my point. We've already denounced the Crusades as horrible mistakes and smirked wryly at Constantine's 'Christian empire', but in the meantime we have historically chopped off a bit of this and lopped off a bit of that and reforged the pagan world. In the beginning, the Crusades - however you may feel about them, what they were, and ultimately what they developed into - could be seen as an attempt to order warfare. We have a new order of warfare, which is capitalism and paganism: get as much as you can, and do whatever is in your best interests.
I often wonder what the 'Greats' would say about our present societies, and of course this goes far beyond this one isolated shard of a glimpse into this subject. St. Augustine (who I've been reading lately) would probably - in fact, judging by his writing, I'm certain he would - say that when our time of trial finally befalls us, it is because God is (at the least) purging us of our evil. Honestly, perhaps it could be said any number of ways, if anything is really going on in the first place. We have chosen the criteria and existentially invented a world via language/linguistics that has now handed us the present situation. We have unleashed a tiger. Or so on.
At one point, there existed something of a unified while diverse melody and harmonisation among Christian theology, Greek philosophy, and (of course) a resulting Sacramental praxis - humanity harmonising into a trinity subsisting within the source of Being: the Trinity. As with the Trinity within which it subsisted, this human trinity had something of an utter stability to it (centred in authority, doctrinal vision, a unified vision of life) as well as something of beautiful change (a 'budding' or 'blossoming' outward into new forms, expressions, and ideas in the romance of it all). Additionally, there existed something of the clumsy fumbling and stumbling of humanity in weakness, folly, fallenness, and/or finitude. Regarding that last part: yes, of course, I do understand that this was hardly a perfectly realised human harmony or 'trinity' ('perfect' being in the Greek sense of ideal/flawless perfection), but that is the nature of this process of historic perfection - the gestation/fermentation of the Holy Spirit into/through the landscapes of humanity, a temporal journey by temporal beings, through the Church's society of humans and society's Church. The history of music or the vision of the Renaissance (to say nothing of the patient sweat to secretly bear civilisation through the Dark Ages) are examples and ripe testaments to the harmonic vision. Having barely glimpsed the depths of the Church, I don't so much think this harmony has 'left us' so much as we have historically left it.
God is working in history to bring all things to His ends; I just don't know how He is planning to do this. How will we participate? Can Western civilisation be salvaged? Will the Church embody Christ in Her next grave only to once again reveal His glorious Resurrection in a participatory type? Centuries ago, missionaries from a little island evangelised Europe again. But I have so many questions and would love to know all the answers before this test of time. We can pray, however, and it seems that we're all going to play our tiny parts one way or another, so it's best to commit to the task.
-Rick
Morality has been historically splintered from praxis, praxis still employs shreds of the morality behind it, and ultimately we have to work with what we have. As an example: capitalism is the historical fruit of a number of various interweaving ideologies and beliefs (a number of which are literally theologically heretical and - as heresy tends to go - dangerous to society), and now capitalism has become something of an historical concrete and branched into all its various ideologies and historical realities that have anchored and branched into others; and we have a drug-addict of a society that is tearing itself apart at the seams (this is true even on an 'a-theological' level, as if there is such a thing, in that we are most unhappy to watch jobs being outsourced and large corporations/government taking drug-addict life of its own, etc.). And so on in countless other examples of the same. We seem to be turning to the environment and human rights as the last bit of solid ground for agreement and action, the last clump of sand we can actually hold in our hands and salvage. Can our contemporary Western, 'First-world' culture be salvaged from its confusion and nominalism? -Or is it propre to rend our robes and allow the destruction to run its full course - that is, is that the Father's judgment and balm?
Foreign policy, military force overseas, Bush vs. Obama, 'bring the troops back', 'finish the job', etc. - I would argue what America did in World War II, speaking on the whole as a cause, was noble and right. Beyond that, I heartily agree that modern, secular communism was and has been a horrible reality, but I'm still very unsure even at that point what America's role is in the world; I guess you ride whatever horse will carry the day over the evil of our time etc. However, in our developing foreign policy since then, we have become the policemen of the world. Is it really America's 'job' to have military bases throughout the world? Which came first, the chicken or the egg - the Middle Eastern hatred for the United States or the United States' active involvement in the Middle East? Are we waging these wars because the Church is no longer offering something of a historical framework for crusades? In writing all this (thinking it through), I'm tending to think that America's foreign policy in the Cold War in the specifics of funding 'proxy wars' were horribly wrong and ultimately judgment-bearing decisions.
It's a cat's cradle, every strand interweaving with another. Pull one, and three or four more are tangled; untangle the three or four, and you're back where you began. In recent centuries arose again the pagan storyline of the world being an essentially violent place (where the basic essence of existence is self-preservation, and the only way for peace is to threaten enough potential violence). Consider ancient Rome and the Greek city-states and their mottos, and then look at our city-states and proverbs. We've bought the line and abandoned the narrative of Christianity, which did/does not overlook violence/evil (and doesn't even condemn violence that seeks to proprely defend that which is worth defending) but does describe the central essence of Being as the Trinity - a creative, inclusive harmony. 'Say that to the terrorists.' Well, that's my point. We've already denounced the Crusades as horrible mistakes and smirked wryly at Constantine's 'Christian empire', but in the meantime we have historically chopped off a bit of this and lopped off a bit of that and reforged the pagan world. In the beginning, the Crusades - however you may feel about them, what they were, and ultimately what they developed into - could be seen as an attempt to order warfare. We have a new order of warfare, which is capitalism and paganism: get as much as you can, and do whatever is in your best interests.
I often wonder what the 'Greats' would say about our present societies, and of course this goes far beyond this one isolated shard of a glimpse into this subject. St. Augustine (who I've been reading lately) would probably - in fact, judging by his writing, I'm certain he would - say that when our time of trial finally befalls us, it is because God is (at the least) purging us of our evil. Honestly, perhaps it could be said any number of ways, if anything is really going on in the first place. We have chosen the criteria and existentially invented a world via language/linguistics that has now handed us the present situation. We have unleashed a tiger. Or so on.
At one point, there existed something of a unified while diverse melody and harmonisation among Christian theology, Greek philosophy, and (of course) a resulting Sacramental praxis - humanity harmonising into a trinity subsisting within the source of Being: the Trinity. As with the Trinity within which it subsisted, this human trinity had something of an utter stability to it (centred in authority, doctrinal vision, a unified vision of life) as well as something of beautiful change (a 'budding' or 'blossoming' outward into new forms, expressions, and ideas in the romance of it all). Additionally, there existed something of the clumsy fumbling and stumbling of humanity in weakness, folly, fallenness, and/or finitude. Regarding that last part: yes, of course, I do understand that this was hardly a perfectly realised human harmony or 'trinity' ('perfect' being in the Greek sense of ideal/flawless perfection), but that is the nature of this process of historic perfection - the gestation/fermentation of the Holy Spirit into/through the landscapes of humanity, a temporal journey by temporal beings, through the Church's society of humans and society's Church. The history of music or the vision of the Renaissance (to say nothing of the patient sweat to secretly bear civilisation through the Dark Ages) are examples and ripe testaments to the harmonic vision. Having barely glimpsed the depths of the Church, I don't so much think this harmony has 'left us' so much as we have historically left it.
God is working in history to bring all things to His ends; I just don't know how He is planning to do this. How will we participate? Can Western civilisation be salvaged? Will the Church embody Christ in Her next grave only to once again reveal His glorious Resurrection in a participatory type? Centuries ago, missionaries from a little island evangelised Europe again. But I have so many questions and would love to know all the answers before this test of time. We can pray, however, and it seems that we're all going to play our tiny parts one way or another, so it's best to commit to the task.
-Rick
01 March 2008
Christ, but he needs policemen;
Each tree its own leaf,
Each stick to its own limb,
Mystics own extinct species, jesus polices and needs policing.
'So
Come ye hither and lay thy head
On
This bosom of My confectionary couch's hem
And
Tell Me, cleanse thy heart before Me;
Now is your hour;
This is the hour of your passion.'
This is the hour of your passion.'
('Jesus, King,
So
So
Give me the ruler-stick psychology to boil off his
Arbitrary.')
'Fair play, fair play' . . .
Who were the forthright vultures
Gorging
First on God's remains?
Of hazy steel our bile-soaked souls were made.
-Rick
-Rick
27 February 2008
...Who Doesn't Have What??
...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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)