The other day, a friend asked me something along these lines: 'In Catholicism, what is the relationship between the physical and the spiritual?' Ultimately, this is what's in question in all of the Sacraments, and the Sacrament of Penance specifically demonstrates the Catholic view of reality/grace/etc. Catholic Christianity is rooted in the understanding that, in the person of Jesus Christ (fully God and fully man), God has redeemed humanity and has done so in such a way that touches both the tangible/physical and intangible/spiritual aspects of our being. To put it in more grandiose terms, heaven and earth have been stitched back together in unity (in the present perfect tense) through Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Son of Man.
Thus, we go to the priest to receive absolution, because absolution is not just a mental 'exercise' - some kind of private, isolated, spiritual 'digital-cable' connection to the spiritual God. Absolution is through God, but this God became flesh, established a regular means of forgiveness, and issued His disciples to continue His mission on earth. Absolution affects and involves the body as much as the soul and spirit - the whole human person. After all, Christians believe (at one and the same time) in the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit within the spirit and the resurrection of the dead.
A. 'Isn't God the only one who can forgive sins?'
Yes. Christ is the only mediator for sins:
'[430] Jesus means in Hebrew: "God saves." At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission. Since God alone can forgive sins, it is God who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, "will save his people from their sins". In Jesus, God recapitulates all of his history of salvation on behalf of men.' [1]
'. . .[452] The name Jesus means "God saves". The child born of the Virgin Mary is called Jesus, "for he will save his people from their sins" (Mt 1:21): "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).'[2]
That must be understood. Every Christian should believe this, regardless of background.
However, the Protestant (probably quite innocently, in most cases) seems to view the Catholic priest as someone who guards the water-hole - 'nope, sorry, there's not enough for you' or 'wait your turn, I'll get it for you' and so forth. There is, to the Protestant, a singular 'place' - intangible/'spiritual' as it may be - that is a 'pool' of God's grace toward which we mentally/'spiritually' position ourselves. In reality, while there is obviously quite a bit to be said for one's heart being proprely attuned to God (one can't truly repent and receive absolution if he/she isn't truly penitent even imperfectly), God has lavished His grace everywhere; if God is that 'water-hole' of grace, He (being Love) seems to have made an almost obscene amount of tributaries - but there are tangible, Sacramental tributaries as well as the tributaries we can see/access in our individual lives. In other words, the priest is not the 'guardian of the water-hole'; really, the foresight of God's grace is that the priest is a physical, tangible water-hole God has provided for us (and again, he is not the only tributary of God's grace, but he does administer the most important means of God's grace).
Yet the water-hole imagery falls short: drink too much water from the hole, and the water-hole is gone. God's grace isn't something to be 'rationed.' I prefer to use the imagery of a lit candle. God is the Candle blossoming through His Spirit His flame of grace, but the priest (as a smaller, set-apart candle) has been given the vocation - the life-purpose - of taking God's flame via the Sacraments into our very midst, of acting in persona Christi (in the person of Christ). God's flame/grace is not diminished or 'rationed' by its being passed to the bishops and priests; the flame of God is just as bright within God Himself as it was before He poured out His Holy Orders upon the priests and bishops. That is, rather, God's grace is not 'rationed' - it is made very specific and tangible via the priest.
The priest partakes in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which sets Him apart to administer the Sacraments. We're all called to different missions in the Kingdom, and the priest is called to act as - well, on behalf of and in the person of, the Priest . . . the One who mediates between God and man. In the Sacraments (capital 'S' - Eucharist, Penance, etc.) and hopefully in the sacramentals (speaking homilies, mentoring, giving counsel, etc.), the priest embodies for us, the local congregation (literally and metaphorically), Christ toward His disciples. His 'role' as a priest is to be a vessel - a re-presentation - of the Priest, the Son of God toward the disciples and the Son of Man toward God. That is, whatever he may be (e.g. a cranky old man with bad manners), the priest has been given the task of being the person who operates in persona Christi (in the person of Christ).
B. 'So, do you have any scriptures to support this radical idea?'
'. . .So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."'
(John 20:19-23, NASB)
There's one instance. Consider also. . .
'And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."'
(Matthew 16:17-19, NASB)
'"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."'
(Matthew 18:18, NASB)
Maybe, along with James, Luke, Acts, much of Paul, and Revelation, we should toss out John and portions of Matthew from the Protestant canon as well. Sadly enough, I've seen Protestant Biblical scholars do just that in a roundabout, passive-aggressive, unscholarly way - but this really isn't the place to waste space talking about such things.
C. What about 1 Timothy 2:5? What about the Book of Hebrews - that we have the 'great High Priest'? What about 1 Peter 2:5 and the 'priesthood of believers'?
Again, there isn't a least common denominator 'water-hole' at stake here. There is room for many different kinds of priests and subsistencies.
As stated earlier, Christ Jesus is THE High Priest of Christianity, the one and only; the local priest acts only through the grace God has given him to act in the person of Christ for the sake of the local community. The priest participates in re-presenting Christ's High Priestly love/action.
Also, we desperately need to remember the context of the 'one High Priest' image. The author of Hebrews is obviously trying to make a point to believers who are, in some form or fashion, comparing newborn Christianity to Judaism; it is implied that many in that position are tempted to turn back to Judaism (some have turned back), rejecting Christ as Lord and avoiding persecution. The author is attempting to show the New Covenant's superiourity to the 'merely' Old Covenant. We truly have a High Priest who understands us and our afflictions.
In the Petrine letter, it is similarly important to note context and cross-reference common sense. What is the definition of a priest? A priest is one who mediates between God and Man, representing God and God's communication to human beings as well as representing human beings and their communication to God. Israel was indeed a 'priestly' people, in that She did just that. She was God's light to the world, ultimately offering to the world the Messiah, and She was to God a 'chosen people.' Collectively, just as Israel, we the New Israel are priests to the world. And individually, in our everyday lives, we are priests in that we bear Christ and Christ's presence to those around us and take their needs/causes to our heavenly Father. This, however, doesn't mean we are all Roman Catholic priests.
D. 'This is a very weird idea. I have a hard time believing this.'
Admittedly, it is a weird concept. Then again, if we're honest, we can admit that Christianity itself is saturated with some fairly weird stuff, no matter whose shoes you're standing in - weirdest of all, that God took on flesh and became man. O Magnum Mysterium and so forth.
However, I think the Catholic rendering of Confession is weird to us Protestants simply because we haven't really thought it through and we're unfamiliar with it. It is probably shocking to Protestants (even some Lutherans) that Martin Luther himself taught and practised priestly confession[3], though he quite vehemently stood in opposition to mandatory confession, and he even wrote that such mode of confession is 'highly satisfactory, and useful or even necessary.'[4] Numerous early Fathers show solidarity with the Catholic notion of Confession as a Sacrament (imagine that); along these lines, take, for instance:
"It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is entrusted."
(St. Basil, The Rule Briefly Treated, x288 [circa A.D. 374].)
"All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, then, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven."
(St. Augustine, Christian Combat [circa 397].)
Even without any transcendent or historical quality to any of this, the Sacrament of Penance just makes plain sense, even to the most coldly calculating, pragmatic of humanists. Accountability, a realisation of reality outside of one's mind and self, 'self-realisation', elements of 'therapy', a security of knowing, without any presumption, that you've been truly forgiven - all of these are the fruits of practising the Sacrament. It makes sense to hold oneself accountable to something/someone beyond oneself, but (in equal measure) not to blurt 'I'm a recovering porn addict!' across the loudspeakers of the community. This common-sensical return to sensibility is evidenced most poignantly in recent movements within Protestant groups, who are recognising the Scriptural mandates for confession 'one to another' and the psychological need for tangible, physically-affirmed forgiveness.[5] One of my graduate professors (a psychologist, no less) has noted in numerous class-sessions for ministers that 'often people have to hear God's forgiveness from your [the minister's] lips.' He doesn't believe in the priest acting literally in persona Christi (much as Martin Luther did not believe in such), and however much I disagree with many of the things he teaches, this teacher is a stone's throw from the truth.
. . .There are obviously many more questions that could be addressed (how Confession has changed throughout history and if that affects Confession, the meaning of public confession, etc.), but I'll leave those for other venues of communication, since these basic questions here (once answered) provide the solid groundwork to answer the other questions.
-Rick
References:
[1]Emphasis mine . . . Catechism of the Catholic Church: from 'The Profession of Faith,' Section II; Chapter 2, Article II, (1)'Jesus'
[2]Emphasis mine . . . Ibid., 'In Brief' summarising the Section
[3]http://www.faithlitchfield.com/resources/luther/archives/2003/10/penance_part_four.php
[4]http://purplepew.org/god-matters/faith-matters/sacrament-of-penance-by-martin-luther
'...The secret confession, however, which is now practised, though it cannot be proved from Scripture, is in my opinion highly satisfactory, and useful or even necessary. I could not wish it not to exist; nay, I rejoice that it does exist in the Church of Christ, for it is the one great remedy for afflicted consciences; when, after laying open our conscience to a brother, and unveiling all the evil which lay hid there, we receive from the mouth of that brother the word of consolation sent forth from God; receiving which by faith we find peace in a sense of the mercy of God, who speaks to us through our brother. What I protest against is the conversion of this institution of confession into a means of tyranny and extortion by the bishops.'
[5]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/22/wconfess122.xml
06 March 2008
Hunger Pangs (thanks, Chad and Jeff)
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)