There is a sense of desperation that has become obvious amongst some of the Reformed camp, as evidenced by their regular and ridiculous attacks on the Catholic Church. The irony of the phenomenon is that those men flailing their arms and making the most noise are the very ones who, having dared to somewhat loosen their ties to the Westminster Divines, appear horrified to realize that they are in a much closer theological orbit with the "Death Star" known as Rome than they ever dreamed they would be. Good news boys: The tractor beam has been engaged, resistance is futile, prepare to be beamed aboard the "Mother"ship. Yeah, I know I mixed Star Wars & Star Trek lingo... Sorry about that.
Kevin Branson
You just know a guy with a hat like that has to be smart
The five part series of Michael Spencer’s interview of Bryan Cross at Internet Monk is highly recommended.
Catholic Philosopher and Blogger Bryan Cross Interview (Part 1)
Unity, Reformation and Tensions in Catholicism (Part 2)
Anglicans, Evangelicals, Convert Apologetics and Books (Part 3)
What Should Protestants Know About Vatican II? (Part 4)
Mary, Purgatory and the Eucharist (Part 5)
These were posted over the course of several days recently, and although I heard about them last week, only today have I had the opportunity to read through them. This is a very edifying interview, and should be read by any and all who have a heart for ecumenism.
Here is an excerpt from the third interview in the series Anglicans, Evangelicals, Convert Apologetics and Books:
Imagine that a large evangelical church brought you in to speak to the entire church on Protestant-Catholic relations/unity. What would be the main points you would cover?
I would first talk about the importance of unity as a constitutive element of the gospel itself, as I did to your earlier question. Then I would talk about the tragedy of the separation of Protestants and Catholics at the Reformation, and why love for Christ requires that Protestants and Catholics should be striving with all our effort to be reconciled in true unity and unity in the truth. Then I would talk about what I see as the fundamental reasons for the present division, first by laying out the two paradigms with respect to ecclesiology, ecclesial authority, ecclesial unity, and soteriology. These things cannot rightly be compared piecemeal; they have to be compared within their respective paradigms, and especially in view of the writings of the early Church Fathers. That’s why I think Protestants and Catholics need to understand both paradigms, in order effectively to reason together about them.
Here’s an example. In the Catholic paradigm, apostolic succession is a crucial component, because it is the basis for ecclesial authority, and thus for determining how other questions should be answered. Protestants do not accept apostolic succession, primarily because they do not find it in Scripture. So when Protestants find apostolic succession in the early Church Fathers, Protestants tend to view that as an accretion of some sort, not as an essential part of the deposit of faith. But from the Catholic point of view, the very stance of the Protestant who requires that something be clearly taught in Scripture in order to believe it, is already a departure from what has been the Church’s belief and practice since the beginning, that is, the practice of understanding Scripture as informed by those shepherds having apostolic succession. For this reason we can see that each side appears, from the point of view of the other side, to be begging the question, i.e. assuming precisely what is in question. In that sort of situation, cannot simply throw verses at each other; we have to step back and compare paradigms. I recently did something similar to that regarding the subject of justification, in my reply to “All the Romery People.”
Thank you to Michael Spencer at Internet Monk for providing the forum and developing the line of questions for Bryan. Thank you to Bryan for being, as always, a calm and sane voice in the maelstrom that is 21st century Christianity.
By the way, Bryan Cross has a personal blog at Principium Unitatis, and he is also one of the contributors at Called to Communion. Both are among my favorite sites and are also highly recommended.
Nobody likes a party pooper.
I am probably the last Catholic blogger today to post the following sermon delivered by Stanley Hauerwas on Reformation Sunday in 1995. I noticed that Bryan Cross had posted this sermon at Called to Communion earlier today, and since this morning I have seen it reposted on several other Catholic sites. So if you happen to drop in here after having already read all the other Catholic blogs in the blogosphere today, well, here it is…again.
Stanley Hauerwas is the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke University. He makes some good points in the sermon reprinted here (there, and everywhere). Hauerwas comes out of the gate admitting that he doesn’t like the fact that the Protestant celebration of the Reformation is a perpetual event, because it is a celebration of failure on a cosmic scale. I’m not endorsing Hauerwas as a theologian, but I do believe he honestly, and bravely, steps out from the crowd in this sermon and boldly goes where not many Protestants are willing, or able, to go.
These are not his words, but it occurs to me that celebrating the Reformation annually (and I used to do so in a big way) is like celebrating the day you divorced your wife each year when the date rolls around. And no matter how lousy you might believe your wife was, wouldn’t it be twisted to annually whoop it up and celebrate the tragic event! Very strange. What was I thinking as a Protestant when I annually celebrated schism in the Body of Christ? Sometimes we have the opportunity to look back at ourselves and just shake our heads at our thoughtlessness. Thank you Lord!
What is so gloriously wonderful about division in the body of Christ? Really! Oh yeah, now I remember: Doctrinal purity (according to your own interpretation or that of your pet theologian) trumps Christian unity. Sorry, I forgot.
Stanley Hauerwas
Sermon originally delivered on October 29, 1995
References: Joel 2:23-32 – 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 16-18 – Luke 18:9-14
I must begin by telling you that I do not like to preach on Reformation Sunday. Actually I have to put it more strongly than that. I do not like Reformation Sunday, period. I do not understand why it is part of the church year. Reformation Sunday does not name a happy event for the Church Catholic; on the contrary, it names failure. Of course, the church rightly names failure, or at least horror, as part of our church year. We do, after all, go through crucifixion as part of Holy Week. Certainly if the Reformation is to be narrated rightly, it is to be narrated as part of those dark days.
Reformation names the disunity in which we currently stand. We who remain in the Protestant tradition want to say that Reformation was a success. But when we make Reformation a success, it only ends up killing us. After all, the very name ‘Protestantism’ is meant to denote a reform movement of protest within the Church Catholic. When Protestantism becomes an end in itself, which it certainly has through the mainstream denominations in America, it becomes anathema. If we no longer have broken hearts at the church’s division, then we cannot help but unfaithfully celebrate Reformation Sunday.
For example, note what the Reformation has done for our reading texts like that which we hear from Luke this morning. We Protestants automatically assume that the Pharisees are the Catholics. They are the self-righteous people who have made Christianity a form of legalistic religion, thereby destroying the free grace of the Gospel. We Protestants are the tax collectors, knowing that we are sinners and that our lives depend upon God’s free grace. And therefore we are better than the Catholics because we know they are sinners. What an odd irony that the Reformation made such readings possible. As Protestants we now take pride in the acknowledgement of our sinfulness in order to distinguish ourselves from Catholics who allegedly believe in works-righteousness.
Unfortunately, the Catholics are right. Christian salvation consists in works. To be saved is to be made holy. To be saved requires our being made part of a people separated from the world so that we can be united in spite of-or perhaps better, because of-the world’s fragmentation and divisions. Unity, after all, is what God has given us through Christ’s death and resurrection. For in that death and resurrection we have been made part of God’s salvation for the world so that the world may know it has been freed from the powers that would compel us to kill one another in the name of false loyalties. All that is about the works necessary to save us.
For example, I often point out that at least Catholics have the magisterial office of the Bishop of Rome to remind them that disunity is a sin. You should not overlook the significance that in several important documents of late, John Paul II has confessed the Catholic sin for the Reformation. Where are the Protestants capable of doing likewise? We Protestants feel no sin for the disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to confess our sin for the continuing disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to do that because we have no experience of unity.
The magisterial office-we Protestants often forget-is not a matter of constraining or limiting diversity in the name of unity. The office of the Bishop of Rome is to ensure that when Christians move from Durham, North Carolina to Syracuse, New York, they have some confidence when they go to church that they will be worshipping the same God. Because Catholics have an office of unity, they do not need to restrain the gifts of the Spirit. As I oftentimes point out, it is extraordinary that Catholicism is able to keep the Irish and the Italians in the same church. What an achievement! Perhaps equally amazing is their ability to keep within the same church Jesuits, Dominicans, and Franciscans.
I think Catholics are able to do that because they know that their unity does not depend opon everyone agreeing. Indeed, they can celebrate their disagreements because they understand that our unity is founded upon the cross and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth that makes the Eucharist possible. They do not presume, therefore, that unity requires that we all read Scripture the same way.
This creates a quite different attitude among Catholics about their relation to Christian tradition and the wider world. Protestants look over to Christian tradition and say, ‘How much of this do we have to believe in order to remain identifiably Christian?’ That’s the reason why Protestants are always tempted to rationalism: we think that Christianity is to be identified with sets of beliefs more than with the unity of the Spirit occasioned through sacrament.
Moreover, once Christianity becomes reduced to a matter of belief, as it clearly has for Protestants, we cannot resist questions of whether those beliefs are as true or useful as other beliefs we also entertain. Once such questions are raised, it does not matter what the answer turns out in a given case. As James Edwards observes, “Once religious beliefs start to compete with other beliefs, then religious believers are – and will know themselves to be -mongerers of values. They too are denizens of the mall, selling and shopping and buying along with the rest of us.”
In contrast, Catholics do not begin with the question of “How much do we need to believe?” but with the attitude “Look at all the wonderful stuff we get to believe!” Isn’t it wonderful to know that Mary was immaculately conceived in order to be the faithful servant of God’s new creation in Jesus Christ! She therefore becomes the firstborn of God’s new creation, our mother, the first member of God’s new community we call church. Isn’t it wonderful that God continued to act in the world through the appearances of Mary at Guadalupe! Mary must know something because she seems to always appear to peasants and, in particular, to peasant women who have the ability to see her. Most of us would not have the ability to see Mary because we’d be far too embarrassed by our vision.
Therefore Catholics understand the church’s unity as grounded in reality more determinative than our good feelings for one another. The office of Rome matters. For at least that office is a judgement on the church for our disunity. Surely it is the clear indication of the sin of the Reformation that we Protestants have not been able to resist nationalistic identifications. So we become German Lutherans, American Lutherans, Norwegian Lutherans. You are Dutch Calvinist, American Presbyterians, Church of Scotland. I am an American Methodist, which has precious little to do with my sisters and brothers in English Methodism. And so we Protestant Christians go to war killing one another in the name of being American, German, Japanese, and so on.
At least it becomes the sin of Rome when Italian Catholics think they can kill Irish Catholics in the name of being Italian. Such divisions distort the unity of the Gospel found in the Eucharist and, thus, become judgements against the church of Rome. Of course, the Papacy has often been unfaithful and corrupt, but at least Catholics preserved an office God can use to remind us that we have been and may yet prove unfaithful. In contrast, Protestants don’t even know we’re being judged for our disunity.
I realize that this perspective on Reformation Sunday is not the usual perspective. The usual perspective is to tell us what a wonderful thing happened at the Reformation. The Reformation struck a blow for freedom. No longer would we be held in medieval captivity to law and arbitrary authority. The Reformation was the beginning of enlightenment, of progressive civilizations, of democracy, that have come to fruition in this wonderful country called America. What a destructive story.
You can tell the destructive character of that narrative by what it has done to the Jews. The way we Protestants read history, and in particular our Bible, has been nothing but disastrous for the Jews. For we turned the Jews into Catholics by suggesting that the Jews had sunk into legalistic and sacramental religion after the prophets and had therefore become moribund and dead. In order to make Jesus explicable (in order to make Jesus look like Luther – at least the Luther of our democratic projections), we had to make Judaism look like our characterization of Catholicism. Yet Jesus did not free us from Israel; rather, he engrafted us into the promise of Israel so that we might be a people called to the same holiness of the law.
I realize that the suggestion that salvation is to be part of a holy people constitued by the law seems to deny the Reformation principle of justification by faith through grace. I do not believe that to be the case, particularly as Calvin understood that Reformation theme. After all, Calvin (and Luther) assumed that justification by faith through grace is a claim about God’s presence in Jesus of Nazareth. So justification by faith through grace is not some general truth about our need for acceptance; but rather justification by faith through grace is a claim about the salvation wrought by God through Jesus to make us a holy people capable of remembering that God’s salvation comes through the Jews. When the church loses that memory, we lose the source of our unity. For unity is finally a matter of memory, of how we tell the story of the Reformation. How can we tell this story of the church truthfully as Protestants and Catholics so that we might look forward to being in union with one another and thus share a common story of our mutual failure?
We know, after all, that the prophecy of Joel has been fulfilled. The portents of heaven, the blood and fire, the darkness of the sun, the bloody moon have come to pass in the cross of our Savior Jesus Christ. Now all who call on that name will be saved. We believe that we who stand in the Reformation churches are survivors. But to survive we need to recover the unity that God has given us as survivors. So on this Reformation Sunday long for, pray for, our ability to remember the Reformation – not as a celebratory moment, not as a blow for freedom, but as the sin of the church. Pray for God to heal our disunity, not the disunity simply between Protestant and Catholic, but the disunity in our midst between classes, between races, between nations. Pray that on Reformation Sunday we may as tax collectors confess our sin and ask God to make us a new people joined together in one might prayer that the world may be saved from its divisions.
“The history of human existence is the story of dour combat with the forces of evil. Don’t fail in the mission at this point. You better pray like your children’s lives are at stake.”
A few short months after Pope Paul VI promulgated his encyclical “Humanae Vitae – On the Regulation of Birth” in July 1968, the Canadian Bishops came forth with the Winnipeg Statement. Theirs was an attempt to quell the firestorm of parishioners, especially in the West, who were incensed that the Pope, in Human Vitae, had clearly condemned all forms of artificial contraception. By pleading the case of the freedom of conscience of the individual believer, the Canadian Bishops essentially gave Catholics who could not in good conscience accept the Church’s teaching a “pass” as regards artificial contraception.
The most gracious assessment of the Catholic Bishops’ actions in issuing the Winnipeg Statement is that they were seeking to save the Catholic Church from an inevitable crisis of abandonment by her weakest members. On the other hand, the harshest critics of the Catholic Bishops would say that they actually caused a crisis of de facto abandonment of the weakest members of the Catholic Church, for though they were able to remain in communion while ignoring the Church’s teaching on contraception, in truth, they were only under an illusion of communion.
The ramifications of Humanae Vitae, and the resulting Winnipeg Statement, extended beyond the Catholic Church, to all of society. Forty years later, we have a clearer vision than ever of those ramifications.
Fr. John Corapi’s video interview which follows is fascinating, and thought provoking. Fr. John maintains that the dissolution of civilization in the West, and in particular as demonstrated in the increasing culture of death, is a direct result of the selective obedience (i.e. disobedience) to the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception…a disobedience that was endorsed, or at the very least enabled, by the Catholic Bishops’ Winnipeg Statement.
In the face of this culture of death, hell on earth, Fr. Corapi calls for action and prayer on the part of Catholics, now! His message is this: Don’t wait for the Bishops to mandate action. Organize now, act now. Stand up and fight now. Fight like it is a life and death struggle, because it truly is. Embrace suffering. Offer it up. Pray. Do penance.
Assume your “unique, precious, unrepeatable place in the battle line.”
Heeeeeeeere’s Jesus!
I didn’t know what to expect when I watched this on somebody’s Facebook profile today, but I liked it. I hope y’all like it too.
Today’s Gospel reading from Mark 9 included this passage:
“At that time, John said to Jesus,
“Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name,
and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.”
Jesus replied, “Do not prevent him.
There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name
who can at the same time speak ill of me.
For whoever is not against us is for us.”
Our priest Fr. Joe is a dear saint from India. In his homily Fr. Joe reminded us that although Protestants are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, we are all working together as brothers and sisters in Christ to advance the Kingdom of God as fellow Christians.
Later in his homily Fr. Joe shared a story with the congregation that caused me, well, most of us, to laugh out loud. Now, Fr. Joe is a decidedly funny, but also a very humble and pastoral priest. As a faithful priest, I am sure that he could “clean house” if needed, but the image of him doing so is too much for my mind to imagine. That is a little bit of context for this story.
Well, the story Fr. Joe told us this morning went like this: Some time in recent past a lady “evangelist” asked Fr. Joe if he would allow her to come into St. Matthew Catholic Church and see the church building. Fr. Joe was happy to oblige her.
It was just after Christmas, and the church was still decorated to the hilt for the Christmas celebration. Besides the seasonal decorations, St. Matthew, being the oldest parish in our diocese, and also a very traditional church, is decorated with the statues of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, a large crucifix, and statues of other various saints and angels, as well as gorgeous old stained glass windows depicting even more saints. For a protestant visitor, it can be breathtaking, and not in the positive sense of the word.
Fr. Joe said that he turned on all the lights in the building, so that all was visible in its grandeur and beauty. He walked with the visiting lady evangelist down the aisle to the front of the church, and stood beside her as she soaked it all in. After a time of silent observation, Fr. Joe said that the visiting evangelist began to pray, loudly so that Fr. Joe and God could both hear, and she said:
“Lord, please forgive me for coming into this place, where people worship idols. I promise that I will never go into such a place again for as long as I live.”
Fr. Joe turned his head and in his distinctive Indian accent said. “OK, Honey. Time’s up.”
I laughed louder than I have ever laughed in Church, and I’m still laughing.
What reason could I possibly have for posting this audio disaster?
Hey Jesus: If Peter’s not our shepherd, how’d I missed that memo!
The following comment was posted as part of the discussion ongoing here under Christ’s Body, the Church: Have it Your Way!:
“Christ is the solid foundation we are to build our house on. Not any one Church. How can you know that what the ‘gates of Hades not prevailing’ actually looks like? Might it be the Protestant reformation, wherein the blessing of Christ is removed from a group that is not faithful to the teachings of the founder Jesus Christ Himself?”
My response follows:
Christ gave us “one Church”. There was, and is, and must be “one Church”. It is not a trivial thing, and not a concept safely subjected to the “what if” exercises that emanate from human minds.
Protestantism depends upon the premise that Jesus somehow approved of, and even commanded an upheaval, a changing of the guard, a passing of the keys of the Kingdom from Peter and the Apostles to…to whom. Anyone and everyone? Who is the new apostolic lineage if not the apostles and their successors? Who exactly is the shepherd? And what would that new kind of flock look like, or would it be so fractured, so scattered as to be unrecognizable?
However, Jesus has nowhere in Scripture anticipated and commanded such a revolution and departure from the historic Apostolic and Catholic Church in favor of a new model. Rather, He has in Scripture prayed for the Apostles and those who would believe through their teaching, that they would be one. Evil men and heresies would pass through the Church, but the Church would endure. That was his promise. There is no scenario where Christ’s promise fails such that the Church fails.
So Protestantism must answer a question, and it really is a life and death kind of question. In fact, I can think of no more weighty question than this: Where has Christ given His command, or even a lame endorsement, for so drastic a thing as the revolution and schism of the Protestant Reformation? What a dangerous and ambitious assumption, to think that in hindsight, we can improve upon the Body of Christ by hacking it into several thousand pieces? That is not to say we do not recognize and repent of sin in the Church. Certainly we do! But we do so within the Church. Always within the Church. There is never a just reason to leave the Church.
Reformation must happen within the Church, and it did, and it does, and the Church lives on, thanks be to God!
So why don’t y’all get on back over here where it’s safe? Honestly!
“There is nothing more serious than the sacrilege of schism because there is no just cause for severing the unity of the Church.” – St. Augustine
Saint Augustine! Cheers! High Five! Wait a minute…he said what!
I am all for ecumenism (but I especially encourage conversion to the Catholic Church), and I am all for honoring the Saints, but I honestly don’t know why anyone, or any congregation outside of the Catholic Church would celebrate Saint Augustine by a feast, or even a tip of the hat, knowing his Catholicity.
It is true that the Great Doctor is the recipient of love and admiration from Christians all across the ecclesial spectrum, and yippee for that. But isn’t it somewhat embarrassing to Protestants to know what the man believed and taught! And doesn’t it make them at least somewhat curious about what the rest of the Fathers believed and taught! And aren’t they at least somewhat incredulous that the recent innovation known as Protestantism is squarely at odds with this great Saint whom they are right to honor!
Augustine on primacy of the See of Rome (that means Pope) & apostolic succession -
“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.”
Augustine on appropriating the name Catholic by those outside of the Catholic Church -
“”And so, lastly, does the very name of “Catholic”, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.”
Augustine on the authority of the Catholic Church -
“”Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should … With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
— St. Augustine (354–430): Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith
“The Church Is Here, In All Of Her Antiquity, Judging Me.”
I realized that, one way or another, I had to come to terms with the Church in all of her antiquity, her authority, her unity, her liturgy, and her sacraments. These five marks, or aspects, of the Church were matters that all of us non-Catholics would find to be eluding us. First, the antiquity of the Church confronts me.
As a Fundamentalist I had discovered while I was in college that it is possible to dismiss the entire Church as having gone off the rails by about A.D. 95. That is, we, with our open Bibles, knew better than did old Ignatius of Antioch or Clement of Rome, who had been taught by the very apostles themselves, just what the Church is and what it should look like. Never mind that our worship services would have been unrecognizable to them, or that our govenance would have been equally unrecognizable; we were right, and the Fathers were wrong (about bishops, and about the Eucharist). That settled the matter.
The trouble here, for me, was that what these wrong-headed men wrote – about God, about our Lord Jesus Christ, about his Church, about the Christian’s walk and warfare – was so titanic, and so rich and so luminous, that their error seemed infinitely truer and more glorious than my truth. I gradually felt that it was I who was under surveillance, not they. The “glorious company of the apostles, the noble army of martyrs, and the holy Church throughout all the world” judge me, not I them. Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Justin, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Cyril, Basil, the Gregorys, Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, Benedict – it is under the gaze of this senate that I find myself standing. Alas. How tawdry, how otiose, how flimsy, how embarrassing seem the arguments that I had been prepared so blithely to put forward against the crushing radiance of these men’s confessions.
The Church is here, in all of her antiquity, judging me.
Lead Kindly Light – My Journey to Rome
John 17
19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Come together, right now, over….Augustine?
Perhaps one day a great movement of reconciliation between Protestants and Catholics, or better yet mass conversion to the Catholic Church 
, will flow from the love and esteem that we all share for the greatest of the Fathers, the Doctor of Hippo, St. Augustine.
Despite the praise that Protestants give Augustine, the fact of the matter is, as Dr. Francis Beckwith has said: “St. Augustine, whose genius helped rid the Church of the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heresies, would not be welcomed…as a faculty member at virtually any evangelical seminary, because the Bishop of Hippo accepted the deuterocanonical (apocryphal) books as part of the Old Testament canon, the deposit of sacred tradition, apostolic succession, the gracious efficacy of the Sacraments, the Real Presence of the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration,and the infusion of God’s grace for justification.”
Lord, have mercy on your children, and reconcile us all to one another, and your Catholic Church.
Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo
It is first of all a remarkable fact that the great critics, Protestant as well as Catholic, are almost unanimous in placing St. Augustine in the foremost rank of Doctors and proclaiming him to be the greatest of the Fathers. Such, indeed, was also the opinion of his contemporaries, judging from their expressions of enthusiasm gathered by the Bollandists. The popes attributed such exceptional authority to the Doctor of Hippo that, even of late years, it has given rise to lively theological controversies. Peter the Venerable accurately summarized the general sentiment of the Middle Ages when he ranked Augustine immediately after the Apostles; and in modern times Bossuet, whose genius was most like that of Augustine, assigns him the first place among the Doctors, nor does he simply call him the incomparable Augustine,” but “the Eagle of Doctors,” “the Doctor of Doctors.” If the Jansenistic abuse of his works and perhaps the exaggerations of certain Catholics, as well as the attack of Richard Simon, seem to have alarmed some minds, the general opinion has not varied. In the nineteenth century Stöckl expressed the thought of all when he said, “Augustine has justly been called the greatest Doctor of the Catholic world.”
And the admiration of Protestant critics is not less enthusiastic. More than this, it would seem as if they had in these latter days been quite specially fascinated by the great figure ofAugustine, so deeply and so assiduously have they studied him (Bindemann, Schaff, Dorner, Reuter, A. Harnack, Eucken, Scheel, and so on) and all of them agree more or less with Harnack when he says: “Where, in the history of the West, is there to be found a man who, in point of influence, can be compared with him?” Luther and Calvin were content to treat Augustine with a little less irreverence than they did the other Fathers, but their descendants do him full justice, although recognizing him as the Father of Roman Catholicism. According to Bindemann, “Augustine is a star of extraordinary brilliancy in the firmament of the Church. Since the apostles he has been unsurpassed.” In his “History of the Church” Dr. Kurtz calls Augustine “the greatest, the most powerful of all the Fathers, him from whom proceeds all the doctrinal and ecclesiastical development of the West, and to whom each recurring crisis, each new orientation of thought brings it back.” Schaff himself (Saint Augustine, Melanchthon and Neander, p. 98) is of the same opinion: “While most of the great men in the history of the Church are claimed either by the Catholic or by the Protestant confession, and their influence is therefore confined to one or the other, he enjoys from both a respect equally profound and enduring.” RudolfEucken is bolder still, when he says: “On the ground of Christianity proper a single philosopher has appeared and that is Augustine.” The English Miter, W. Cunningham, is no less appreciative of the extent and perpetuity of this extraordinary influence: “The whole life of the medieval Church was framed on lines which he has suggested: its religious orders claimed him as their patron; its mystics found a sympathetic tone in his teaching; its polity was to some extent the actualization of his picture of the Christian Church; it was in its various parts a carrying out of ideas which he cherished and diffused. Nor does his influence end with the decline of medievalism: we shall see presently how closely his language was akin to that of Descartes, who gave the first impulse to and defined the special character of modern philosophy.” And after having established that the doctrine of St. Augustine was at the bottom of all the struggles between Jansenists and Catholics in the Church of France, between Arminians and Calvinists on the side of the Reformers, he adds: “And once more in our own land when a reaction arose against rationalism and Erastinianism it was to the African Doctor that men turned with enthusiasm: Dr. Pusey’s edition of the Confessions was among the first-fruits of the Oxford Movement.”
But Adolf Harnack is the one who has oftenest emphasized the unique rôle of the Doctor of Hippo. He has studied Augustine’s place in the history of the world as reformer of Christian piety and his influence as Doctor of the Church. In his study of the “Confessions” he comes back to it: “No man since Paul is comparable to him” — with the exception of Luther, he adds. — “Even today we live by Augustine, by his thought and his spirit; it is said that we are the sons of the Renaissance and the Reformation, but both one and the other depend upon him.”
“Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it”.
Don’t get your pants in a wad, that’s Flannery O’Connor’s quote, not mine….but I have to admit, I do love it.
I have decided that Reformed theologians (and “armchair” theologians) have become experts in the practice of interpreting Scripture with Scripture so “masterfully” that they can complicate (or sanitize, or neuter) Biblical truth that is fundamental, hard-hitting and straight forward, albeit rich and complex, into something else entirely, to the degree that when they are done, their Scriptural by-product would be totally unrecognizable to the people actually involved in the original discourses and historical events found in the Scriptures the Reformed seek to “unravel”. Is it any wonder that their version of “Faith 2.0″ (or any of it’s thousands of derivatives) betrays a staggering disconnect with the first 1500 years of Christian belief and practice.
One example is the Reformed renovation of our Lord’s deliberate and mandated establishment of a visible Church authenticated by affiliation with and allegiance to Peter and the Apostles.
A second example is the Reformed sterilization of the Lord’s hard teaching on the life which comes to those who eat his body and drink his blood in the Eucharist.
“Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ “( Jn 6:52). And “on hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ ” (Jn 6:60)
The Eucharistic Mystery concerns the Word of life. Indeed, St. John records that , when Jesus had finished his discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum, he said to his astounded listeners, “the words I have spoken to you are spirit, and they are life.” Such they were, but he had expressed them – perhaps intentionally so – in such a provocative way that they scandalized not only the Jews in general but the Jews who were his disciples as well. To a Jew the notion of eating flesh and drinking blood was a horror. Indeed, through the prophet Ezekiel, God had used the imagery of having their flesh and blood eaten as the ultimate disgrace to be visited upon sinners.
“Call out to every bird and all the wild animals: “Assemble and come together from all around to the sacrifice I am preparing for you, the great sacrifice on the mountains of Israel. There you will eat flesh and drink blood. You will eat the flesh of mighty men and drink the blood of the princes of the earth as if they were rams and lambs, goats and bulls…At the sacrifice I am preparing for you, you will eat fat till you are glutted and drink blood till you are drunk” (Ez 39:17-19).
Now at Capernaum the Eternal One who had inspired those words was telling them that, at his sacrifice, they and not animals would indeed eat the Flesh of the Mighty and drink the Blood of the Prince of the princes of the earth. Knowing the shock created by the very thought, Jesus added immediately “Yet there are some of you who do not believe” (Jn 6:63-64).
The scandal of the Mystery has never gone away; it is for many just too much to accept. Flannery O’Connor, in one of her letters, recalls a visit she made to another well-known author and former Catholic. This latter “said that when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, he being the ‘most portable’ Person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, ‘Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.’ That was all the defense I was capable of, but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable.”
It is surely true that the Mystery of the Eucharist can be propounded in such a way that all of the “shock value” contained in the words of Jesus is removed by anticipation. Such a form of pedagogy or catechesis, however, departs from the approach taken by the Lord himself. It can happen that, by removing the shock, one will remove as well an accurate appreciation of the Eucharist, thereby obviating the response in faith that is necessary to accept Christ’s words. Jesus may have intended to shock. Indeed, on the occasion of his synagogue talk at Capernaum, he let the words stand by themselves, refusing to give any explanation that would soften their impact. What he taught was beyond human nature’s ability to comprehend. (“That is called Flesh which flesh does not understand, and because it is called Flesh, so much the more does flesh not understand”, Augustine would say.) The Lord, however, was looking for faith, faith in himself and faith in his words, well aware, as he himself said, that no one could offer such faith “unless the Father draw him” (Jn6:44). And so many found the saying too much to take. They went away.
Through the centuries the Church has consistently refused to mitigate the shock contained in the words of the Lord at Capernaum. Her pedagogy is like her Master’s. Recognize in all its fullness what it is you are expected to believe and pray that the Father will lead you to accept. Let him accept it who can. Dissent to the Church’s teaching is not only a phenomenon of the twentieth century; it has always existed. And this dissent has touched upon not merely secondary issues but frequently upon those most central to the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ message. None more so than the Eucharist. Many have not been able to accept the Mystery as the Church meditated upon it and expounded it more adequately, but their very unwillingness or inability has been the occasion used by the Spirit to deepen the Church’s appreciation for what Jesus meant.
The Hidden Manna – Pg 95-97
Martin Luther on the honor due to the Mother of God
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child…. Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God…. None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
Luther’s Works, 21:326, cf. 21:346
Revelation 11:19,12:1-6,10
The sanctuary of God in heaven opened and the ark of the covenant could be seen inside it. Then came flashes of lightning, peals of thunder and an earthquake, and violent hail.
Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman, adorned with the sun, standing on the moon, and with the twelve stars on her head for a crown. She was pregnant, and in labour, crying aloud in the pangs of childbirth. Then a second sign appeared in the sky, a huge red dragon which had seven heads and ten horns, and each of the seven heads crowned with a coronet. Its tail dragged a third of the stars from the sky and dropped them to the earth, and the dragon stopped in front of the woman as she was having the child, so that he could eat it as soon as it was born from its mother. The woman brought a male child into the world, the son who was to rule all the nations with an iron sceptre, and the child was taken straight up to God and to his throne, while the woman escaped into the desert, where God had made a place of safety ready, for her to be looked after in the twelve hundred and sixty days.
Then I heard a voice shout from heaven, ‘Victory and power and empire for ever have been won by our God, and all authority for his Christ, now that the persecutor, who accused our brothers day and night before our God, has been brought down.’
Psalm 45:10-12,16
Hear, O daughter, consider, and incline your ear; forget your people and your father’s house; and the king will desire your beauty. Since he is your lord, bow to him; the people of Tyre will sue your favor with gifts, the richest of the people, Instead of your fathers shall be your sons; you will make them princes in all the earth.
1 Corinthians 15:20-26
Christ has been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of all who have fallen asleep. Death came through one man and in the same way the resurrection of the dead has come through one man. Just as all men die in Adam, so all men will be brought to life in Christ; but all of them in their proper order: Christ as the first-fruits and then, after the coming of Christ, those who belong to him. After that will come the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, having done away with every sovereignty, authority and power. For he must be king until he has put all his enemies under his feet and the last of the enemies to be destroyed is death, for everything is to be put under his feet.
Luke 1:39-56
Mary set out at that time and went as quickly as she could to a town in the hill country of Judah. She went into Zechariah’s house and greeted Elizabeth. Now as soon as Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. She gave a loud cry and said, ‘Of all women you are the most blessed, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. Why should I be honoured with a visit from the mother of my Lord? For the moment your greeting reached my ears, the child in my womb leapt for joy. Yes, blessed is she who believed that the promise made her by the Lord would be fulfilled.’
And Mary said:
‘My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord
and my spirit exults in God my saviour;
because he has looked upon his lowly handmaid.
Yes, from this day forward all generations will call me blessed,
for the Almighty has done great things for me.
Holy is his name,
and his mercy reaches from age to age for those who fear him.
He has shown the power of his arm,
he has routed the proud of heart.
He has pulled down princes from their thrones and exalted the lowly.
The hungry he has filled with good things, the rich sent empty away.
He has come to the help of Israel his servant, mindful of his mercy
– according to the promise he made to our ancestors –
of his mercy to Abraham and to his descendants for ever.’
Mary stayed with Elizabeth about three months and then went back home.
O God, you have taken to yourself the blessed Virgin Mary,
mother of your incarnate Son: Grant that we, who have
been redeemed by his blood, may share with her the glory
of your eternal kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord,
who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the
Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever
Book of Common Prayer – 1979
A fresh, new take on Fate, and human sacrifice to an angry God
There is a great deal of theological baggage for a lifelong Calvinist turned Catholic to unpack after conversion (so rich and systematic is Calvinist theology, therefore it is so voluminous). The temptation, however, is to ignore the unpacking, because Calvinism has but one competitor when it comes to a rich, expansive theological raiment, that being Catholic theology. The Catholic convert is inclined to dive into that glorious pile of ancient (yet fresh) Catholic theological laundry and joyously roll around in it, while the weighty bags of Calvinism sit in the corner, waiting to be sorted through and put away. The problem is not that the Calvinist baggage contains anything so nostalgic or needful as to cause one to miss those days or question one’s conversion. Rather, the bags, when opened, bring a whiff of theological wrappings that can prompt a wave of soul-sucking, dark sadness, and that cannot compete with the joyous light of the Catholic Church and her theology. Granted, we remember that there are some good things in those old bags sitting in the corner, but those good things are to be found, and more (but minus the dark mustiness) in the rich Catholic theological wardrobe we now wrap ourselves in.
In the passage quoted below, Hilaire Belloc gives a glimpse of something unsettling that I believe hides in Calvinist baggage, and something I occasionally catch a whiff of, but haven’t desired to really unpack.
In that same year (1536), when Henry of England, at Thomas Cromwell’s suggestion, began the dissolution of the monasteries, there appeared a book which was destined to make all the difference to the fortunes of the Reformation, and to give consistency and form, and therefore endurance, to the fatal cleavage of Christendom.
This book was the “Institute” written by a Frenchman of Noyon: one Jean Cauvin.
Men sometimes talk of a book as having changed the world. The talk is usually exaggerated, and even off the mark. More often a book of great effect is but the exposition, the putting into clear form, of ideas already widely received. Often, again, a gook gets great historical standing as a cause, when it is no more than the registration of some institution already founded and bound to continue with equal vigor whether the book had been compiled or no.
But in the case of this book of John Calvin’s (to use the English form of the name) we come as near as we can anywhere in history to a piece of writing which was itself an agent, and a single agent.
Even here we must not exaggerate. The effect of the book was principally due to its coming when it did: it exactly supplied what was needed; it cast the Reformation into a mold at a moment when the movement was still fluid, while the crucible was still boiling. The same book produced today would have no such effect. The same book produced in the thirteenth century would have had a great effect, but not the same effect.
Nevertheless, it is true that the “Institute” of John Calvin did far more to stamp, mold and render permanent the thing which we have known for more than three hundred years as “Protestantism” (the ethical mood which has been of such powerful effect upon the history of our race) than any other factors of the Reformation; and that truth is an excellent proof that the mind of man lives by doctrine, and that clear thought is the master of mere emotion. Until that book appeared the Reformation had, for now twenty years, lived upon Protest against, and indignation with, the later abuses of the Church. Its doctrines had been various and confused, its course devious; an eddy.
What Calvin did was to produce a church, a creed, a discipline, which could be set over against what had been for all these centuries (and what still is) the native church, creed, and discipline of Christian civilization. For John Calvin it was who produced, down to its details with the rapidity of genius, and with the tenacity of genius, a new thing.
True, great bodies of Europeans broke away permanently from unity, yet would not wholly follow Calvin. Such was the Lutheran mass; such, of course, were the bulk of English Protestants to be; and even among those who were profoundly influenced by the “fundamental brain-work” of this man, whole groups — such as the Independents of the seventeenth century — refused to conform to the rigid framework he had established.
Yet it remains true that Calvinism is the core of Protestantism to this day; that the effects on character which the Protestant culture continues to admire are essentially the effects of Calvinism; that the whole world of anti-Catholic thought, even today when it has lost the doctrines of Calvinism, is in its most intimate ideals molded on the Calvinistic model.
What Calvin did was this. He took what is one of the oldest and most perilous directives of mankind, the sense of Fate. He isolated it, and he made it supreme, by fitting it, with the kneading of a powerful mind, into the scheme which Christian men still traditionally associated with the holiness and authority of their ancestral religion.
God had become Man, and God had become Man to redeem mankind. That was no part of the old idea of Inevitable Fate. On the contrary, it was a relief from that pagan nightmare. We of the Faith say that the Incarnation was intended to release us from such a pagan nightmare. Well, Calvin accepted the Incarnation, but he forced it to fit in with the old pagan horror of compulsion: “Ananke.”
He reintroduced the Inexorable.
Yes, God had become Man and had died to save mankind; but only mankind in such numbers and persons as He had chosen to act for. The idea of the Inexorable remained. The merits of Christ were imputed, and no more. God was Causation, and Causation is one immutable whole. A man was damned or saved; and it was not of his doing. The recognition of evil as equal with good, which rapidly becomes the worship of evil (the great Manichean heresy, which has roots as old as mankind; the permanent motive of Fear) was put forward by Calvin in a strange new form. He did not indeed oppose, as had the Manichean, two equal principles of Good and of Evil. He put forward only one principle, God. But to that One Principle he ascribed all our suffering, and, for most of us, necessary and eternal suffering.
Again, the Catholic Church had called the soul of man immortal. Calvin accepted that doctrine; but under his hands it becomes an immortality of doom, and for the few who shall have doom to beatitude, doom it yet is, as doom is is to the myriads for whom it shall mean despair.
From this great man, I say, proceeds a whole web of ideas which still live, though the doctrines which were so living to him and his followers, the strict dogmas upon which they evolved their mighty system of warped theology, have faded from the modern mind. If today your non-Catholic conceives of the material, and, more latterly, the spiritual processes as inevitable, if he inclines to despair, if he is tempted by the latest fad of the “subconscious” which man fights in vain, the savor of Calvin is in it all.
You may find today in unexpected regions of thought the influence of the man. He it was, for instance, who said that the ministry must proceed from election, but that ministers once elected had authority over the electors. What better parallel for the Parliamentary fallacy, the falsity of which Europe is only now perceiving? He it was who in a fashion not general, like that of the old humanist scholars, but direct and dogmatic, pitted document, however fragmentary, against the living voice of tradition. He it was who rendered humility futile and the appetite for wealth a virtue. He it was who began the war against Joy. He it was who set up in so definite a fashion the wall which separates the Catholic mind in Europe from its opponents; he it was who put up a new positive force directed against the positive force of the Catholic Church.
Katie at St. Joseph’s Vanguard and Our Lady’s Train has posted an excellent piece titled Personal Apologia: This Is Not Idolatry. She very effectively makes her point, that knee jerk reactionary claims of Catholic idolatry are generally way off the mark.
Which part of Jesus’ prayer for the Church don’t we understand?
See 3rd Update Below
As often as not, in the last year or so, whenever I log onto a Presbyterian(ish) blog I am finding another post about the Catholic Church, and they aren’t favorable. Then there are the books, sermons, studies, and podcasts. When was the last time that Catholicism was such a popular topic amongst Presbyterians?
Jim Jordan recently pointed out on his blog in an entry titled Rome? Why Bother?, that leaving evangelical Presbyterianism for the Roman Catholic Church is no great leap. That was not a compliment to the Roman Catholic Church, by the way, rather it was a criticism of evangelical Presbyterianism.
But, Jordan then went on to acknowledge in the comments to the post (referring to a conversation he had with a recent Catholic convert) that actually, Roman Catholic Worship could actually be considered as an improvement compared to some of the worship found in evangelical Presbyterianism (PCA) today. No doubt, Mr. Jordan is not endorsing the Catholic Church. But here is what he had to say, and my reply :
A Roman Catholic convert from modern evangelicalism wrote to me to say that the RC church he has joined has lots of Bible, lots of congregational singing, etc., and far more of these than the Presbyterian church he abandoned. I have no doubt that this is true, though of course he has embraced some serious problems by becoming RC. I was commenting on the state of the Papal church at the time of the Reformation.
His point, however, is still of some validity. More often than not, a person moving from a PCA church to the Roman Catholic Church is moving from less Bible to more Bible, from less psalmody (i.e., zero) to more psalmody, from starvation to food.
It makes me think of how the Ithamar and Eleazar lines of priests shifted back and forth during the old age.
Ah, that Rome would give up its silly and abominable notions of Mary’s perpetual virginity, it’s semi-necromancy, and its semi-iconolatry! Until then, I’ll suffer in evangelicalism.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Jim Jordan said: “Ah, that Rome would give up its silly and abominable notions of Mary’s perpetual virginity, it’s semi-necromancy, and its semi-iconolatry! Until then, I’ll suffer in evangelicalism.”
Kevin said: Good news! Let me make it a little easier for you all. Luther and Calvin both believed and wrote of their belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. If you can just side with those two fellows on that one issue, then only a couple more remain on Mr. Jordan’s short list of reasons to continue to “suffer in evangelicalism”.
Blessings and Peace.
KevinI probably should have put a smiley face in there, as I wanted to make a point but in a good natured way. My response to Mr. Jordan’s comment is “awaiting moderation”. Hopefully he will approve it and it will post to his blog.
(Update 1 – Apparently my questions and comments aren’t allowed on Mr. Jordan’s blog at this time. The comment shown above is no longer showing up on my system as “awaiting moderation”, it is simply gone. And another comment, actually a simple question for Mr. Jordan, that I had posted and which had been approved yesterday, has now been removed from his blog as well. Perhaps there is a reason for this that I am not aware of. I hope that Mr. Jordan will see fit to allow a free flow of discussion on his blog. When men say things against the Catholic Church, ought they not be willing to allow her members to respond, so long as they behave themselves? For the record, I have only blocked a comment to this blog on one occasion, and that was because it was a malicious personal attack against a fellow Christian, and on that occasion I communicated my reason for denying approval of the comment to the man making the attack.)
(Update 2 – Well, I’m certain now that Mr. Jordan, or his people, have not accidentally misplaced my questions and comments initially posted, or up for moderation, at his blog. As of now, not only is my formerly “approved” question regarding The Liturgy Trap gone…not only is my comment waiting for moderation and quoted above for his post “Rome, Why Bother” gone…NOW they have even scrubbed their blog of the trackbacks that automatically show as comments whenever I happen to link to the Biblical Horizons blog. Bottom line, there is no hint of my existence or activity on Mr. Jordan’s blog anymore. Now, it is Mr. Jordan’s blog, so he can post or withhold whatever he pleases, but I’m curious. What gives! I haven’t been rude, crude or socially unacceptable in my responses or questions to Mr. Jordan. I haven’t sought to promote hate or lies on his blog. I have asked for some clarification on The Liturgy Trap in order that I might fairly respond to his book as I said I would. I have offered a link to enlighten Protestants on the Reformers belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I have linked to his blog from my blog in various posts, sending readers his way in the process. Mr. Jordan has seen fit to take shots at the Catholic Church in book and blog, which is his right, I suppose. Some might advise against it. In any event, he has made some bold claims against the largest body of Christians in the world. Can’t a Catholic get a place in the conversation. Well, when it is only one-sided, it really isn’t a conversation, is it? Ecumenism, who knew it was destined to be so difficult! Some of these fellows are apparently not interested in there being any public ecumenical discourse…if Catholics are involved in the conversation. I wonder why. )
So I asked Mr. Jordan:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Mr. Jordan –
Have you no interest in allowing Catholics, such as myself, the opportunity to participate in discussions with you and your readers here on your site? You are very critical of the Catholic Church, and I wonder why you have seen fit to give no real opportunity for dialogue in the wake of your criticisms.
Blessings and Peace
KB
And I emailed Mr. Jordan with my question from The Liturgy Trap, since it too was deleted:
Mr. Jordan,
My question posted on your blog was initially approved and subsequently deleted. I hope you might have the time and inclination to answer me please.
In The Liturgy Trap you state that the angel Michael is actually Christ. I am familiar with the reasons offered by Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists for their belief that Michael is actually Christ. Can you provide a brief explanation for your proclamation?
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Blessings and Peace.
KB
(Update 3 – Mr. Jordan wrote me back and answered my question about The Liturgy Trap. Thank you Mr. Jordan. As to why my question, comments, and trackbacks were deleted from the Biblical Horizons Blog, Mr Jordan said: “It’s not really MY blog, and I don’t make the decisions.”)
Here’s my two cents:
The fact that both Luther and Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary is offered really just as an example of the fact that Protestants and Catholics are closer to one another than they realize, if only for the fact that a couple of Protestantism’s founders and heroes were more Catholic than present day Protestants realize. Alas, Luther and Calvin were more Catholic than present day Protestants are themselves. We could also look to doctrines of grace, justification, baptism, sanctification and others and find common ground that would be truly surprising to most Protestants and Catholics alike.
If non-Catholic Christians really understood what Catholics actually believe and how they really worship (and I include the good Mr. Jordan, for as insightful as he is, he is still missing the mark in his analysis of the “errors” of Catholicism i.e. The Liturgy Trap), and if Catholics really understood what makes Protestants tick and why they are so opposed to Catholicism…if we could all really learn about “them”, and thereby discover and see past our wrong assumptions (we all have them), if we could take Jesus’ prayer for our unity seriously, then… there is no limit to what God could do through us, as one visible Church, one visible Body.
Do you know why most people who shun Christianity do so? A great number, perhaps the majority of them do so because they are impressed by how fractured, dysfunctional, and hostile we are to each other. LORD have mercy.
(Ed L and Tim C, I will be responding to The Liturgy Trap soon on my blog as you asked me to, in a series of posts. Needing Mr. Jordan’s response to this question…(well, someone at Mr. Jordan’s blog has deleted the question now, so much for going straight to the source for explanations. Ed L, perhaps you could encourage Biblical Horizons blog to let me back in the loop and allow my questions and comments again, since I read and agreed to respond to The Liturgy Trap at your request) and some free time to pull together my response to Chapter One – “The Saints”. I do have one brief “accidental” reply to his Chapter Five on the Lord’s Supper , “Real Presence, Real Absence” posted already on my blog, but I will address Chapter Five more completely and deliberately as well).
Kevin Branson
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Come Holy Spirit, and fill the hearts of thy faithful people, and kindle in them the fire of thy love.
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen
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.
Holy Father, who watchest over thy children by night and by day, have mercy and save me.
Blessed Jesus, our Food and our Stay, have mercy and save me.
Sweet Spirit, Light and Guide of our souls, have mercy and save me.
Glorious Holy Trinity, Abyss of Love, have mercy and save me.
Holy, Blessed and Glorious Trinity, I adore thee.
In thy perfect Beauty, I adore thee.
In thy boundless Power, I adore thee.
With the Holy Mother, I adore thee.
With the Holy Angels, I adore thee.
With the Blessed Saints, I adore thee.
In union with every Mass which is offered today, I adore thee.
Praise and Thanksgiving for protection during the past night, I offer to thee.
Praise and Thanksgiving for all thy mercies and blessings, I offer to thee.
My daily work, I offer to thee.
All my thoughts, I offer to thee.
All my words, I offer to thee.
All my deeds, I offer to thee.
My joys and my consolations, I offer to thee.
My sorrows and my troubles, I offer to thee.
My difficulties, my doubts and anxieties, I offer to thee.
On all near and dear to me, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On our country and its rulers, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On the Holy Catholic Church, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On all Bishops, particularly our own Bishop, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On our Parish and our Priests, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On all Priests in their ministrations, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On all Religious in their life of prayer, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On all Missionaries throughout the world, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On all Travelers by land, by sea, or by air, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On our armed services and Merchant Marine, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On all Christians married today, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On all Christian homes, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On all going out to work, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On all children at home or at school, send thy blessing, O Lord.
On all children born today, send thy blessing, O Lord.
V. To all who die today,
R. Give true contrition and receive their souls
V. To the faithful departed,
R. Grand light and peace.
V. In my daily temptations,
R. Good Lord, deliver me.
V. When I forget thee,
R. Recall me to thyself.
V. In any danger of soul or body,
R. Preserve and defend me.
May the Blessed Mother help me with motherly love.
May my Holy Guardian Angel watch over me and pray when I forget to pray.
May my soul this day me made more fit, for the day which has no end.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
This post is for Catholic “Eyes Only”.
Protestants move along…nothing to see here.
This quote is found in the Introduction to Hilaire Belloc’s book – How the Reformation Happened.
…the matter with which any story of the Reformation deals is the Catholic Church. The world upon which the Reformation fell and which it in part destroyed was the creation of the Catholic Church acting as a leaven for fifteen hundred, as a world-wide authority for a thousand years. The Reformation was an attack on that institution; its fruit, called Protestantism, is a negative product of that institution: the principle of unity in that fruit is reaction against that institution: therefore is full knowledge of the institution essential to knowledge of the conflict. Yet the general histories upon which opinion has been mainly nourished missed the very stuff with which they were dealing, because they proceeded from authors who had no intimacy with the Catholic Church: who did not know ‘what it was all about.’
It is not a point of sympathy or dislike. A man may truly relate a battle whether he applaud or deplore its issue. But he cannot relate it truly if he does not know the ground. A man writing three centuries hence of Victorian England might love or hate its village life, but if he shall be all at sea on the gentry and their villages he will be writing equally bad history in praise or in blame of them. Whether he supports or denounces the despotism of the squires he will be worthless as an historian because the Victorian squires were not despots.
One of the real frustrations in trying to talk to Protestants about the Church is their utter inability to see her, and her history, accurately. This is largely due to that which Belloc refers in the above quote. Even the serious Protestant “student” is probably reading bad Church history. The average Protestant isn’t even reading Church history at all, good or bad, and only knows what he has been taught, and we know how awful and mistaken that usually is.
To compound the difficulty, the rising tide of converts from Protestantism to Catholicism has encouraged Protestant pastors, teachers, bloggers, et al to play some serious “full court” defense. They are worried, and who can blame them. They are losing not only rank and file members, but high profile leaders as well. Of course, their defensive response takes the form of a fresh spew of new information, which is really just the same old bad information recycled, republished, and regurgitated.
I believe that any of us who are striving to be a witness for the Catholic Church to our Protestant friends and family need to remember, as Belloc points out, that the Reformation was a violent attack against the Church. It was a war, and while outward appearances often seem to indicate that Protestantism has settled down in its hatred of the Church…”It only takes a spark to get a fire going, And soon all those around can warm up in its glowing.”
The point of all this: the Catholic Church is in a period of real growth, and perhaps history will show we are in a period of explosive growth. The more that Protestantism realizes this, the more it will respond defensively with its bad message about the Church, based, at least in part, on a flawed historical understanding. But let’s take it down to the level at which we operate: person to person.
We need to remember that we are dealing for the most part with sincere Christians who have deep seated beliefs based on a very bad understanding of Church history, reinforced by equally bad teaching. And this is not limited to the person in the pew. This includes pastors and teachers. What we encounter with Protestantism is worse than a language barrier. It is a reality barrier.
Therefore, words alone don’t often accomplish much in our one-on-one discourse. Given the reality barrier, real love and real prayer are required in order for eyes and hearts to be opened to see and understand the real “lay of the land”. Otherwise we are just wasting our energy.
Were they all just terribly confused or incredibly stupid ?
(Note – This is an edited version of an earlier post. While this post does not constitute a deliberate response to The Liturgy Trap by James Jordan, which I have agreed to work through on this blog, the subject matter of this post is relevant to Mr. Jordan’s views on the Eucharist as expressed in Chapter 5 of the book. The chapter is titled “Real Presence – Real Absence”. For the record, I do respect James Jordan and have benefited from some of his insights, but on this matter I, and the Catholic Church, squarely line up with St. Ignatius and the other early Church Fathers…and Jesus, Paul, et al)
St. Ignatius of Antioch (35-107 A.D.), a disciple of Peter and John, wrote to the Smyrnaeans while being taken to Rome where he would be martyred:
But look at the men who have those perverted notions about the grace of Jesus Christ which has come down to us, and see how contrary to the mind of God they are. . . . They even abstain from the Eucharist and from the public prayers, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self-same body of our Savior Jesus Christ which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up again.
Early Christian Writings – Andrew Louth
I want to ask Protestant pastors, professors, and all men who are in positions of significant responsibility as regards teaching the Christian faith to seriously consider the words and teaching of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who makes very plain his certain conviction that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is fundamental to the Christian faith. Protestant pastors and professors are daily teaching something that is diametrically opposed to a central matter of the faith as believed by St. Ignatius (and the entire early Church). Somebody has got this terribly wrong.
Now, Ignatius was one person removed from Christ, and was appointed Bishop of Antioch by the Apostle Peter. He wrote his letter to Smyrna within ten years of the death of the Apostle John, whom he also knew personally and studied under. Obviously, this early Church Father understood the Apostles to have personally taught him that Christ was really present in the Eucharist.
He is quite clearly convinced that Christ wasn’t speaking figuratively when he said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56).
Nor did Ignatius believe that Jesus was speaking figuratively with His disciples in the upper room. Ignatius had understood the Apostles to teach that Jesus meant what he said to the disciples: the bread and the wine were His body and blood.
If Ignatius had been a lone voice amongst the Church Fathers and early Christians for the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then maybe we could chalk up his staunch position to a dreadful misunderstanding of what the Apostles had taught him, although that would be tough to swallow. But we know for a fact that Ignatius was not alone in his belief regarding the Eucharist, as we will prove in just a moment. In fact, his understanding was the accepted and fiercely defended Eucharistic doctrine of the Church from it’s very beginning, and any who departed from that doctrine were quickly shown the error of their ways, even as Ignatius demonstrated in his letter to Smyrna.
So was Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch, student of the Apostles, wrong about Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist? Were these first Christians all just unbelievably stupid? Was the Church a total wreck in terms one of the most basic doctrines from the very beginning of it’s existence! Were they in outright rebellion against the teaching of the Apostles? Or perhaps the Apostles did such a terrible job of teaching the early Church and appointing their successors and bishops that virtually every one of the Christians on record from these early centuries were utterly and completely wrong as regards the fundamental nature of the Eucharist! Are we supposed to believe that?
Or, were Peter and the Apostles, their successors Ignatius and the other bishops, the other early Church Fathers, and the faithful rank and file Christians all solidly and correctly united in the belief that Christ was really and truly present in the Eucharist, precisely because Jesus meant exactly what he had said to his disciples?
So how do we respond to the Eucharistic doctrine of St. Ignatius in his letter to Smyrna. And while we are at it, here are a few more early witnesses to the Church’s Eucharistic doctrine to consider:
Forty years later (after Ignatius), Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).
Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. “I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).
Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ” (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).
In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).
(Even more Church Fathers speak to this doctrine here. And here as well, with some overlap.)
Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.
Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.
One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.
It’s Jesus calling: “Can you hear Me now?”
It occurred to me that the picture at right depicts what must certainly be the first “Smart” phone….get it? (Yes the picture is relevant to the post…wait for it.)
The papacy is among the most misunderstood and therefore wrongly hated institutions in all the world, much like the Catholic Church.
I typically cringe when a Protestant pastor or leader decides to step up and call out or denounce the Pope for no good reason, simply on Protestant principal, objecting to the office as they do more so than the man himself, or any sin on his part. Certainly the man who holds the office is not beyond sin, or legitimate criticism, but the criticisms of modern day Popes tend not to be made on the basis of his personal failures. Rather, the Pope, individually or more likely, the office, is condemned because it is not believed to be Biblical, and therefore contrary to “true” Christianity. That is a real shame, because to write him off and the authority of the office, to merely dismiss him on Protestant principal, or even to despise him out of Protestant zeal, is the ultimate example of ecclesiastical delusion and misdirected passion.
I am certain that Jesus is not pleased when a man condemns that Church which Christ has mandated, or the Petrine office and Apostolic ranks with which He has identified and legitimized her. It reminds me of a Jim Croce song about dangerous exploits…you know the one.
It is the equivalent of throwing stones at the caretaker of the vineyard, mistaking him for a trespasser, believing that you are doing a favor for the Master of the vineyard. In fact you are fighting against the Master, albeit the result of a sincere misunderstanding and a genuine love for the Master. Nevertheless, it is wrong, and it is therefore a thoroughly bad idea.
This from the Catholic Herald:
Two thirds of Christians in Britain do not think the Pope is a true Christian leader, according to a new poll.
The poll, conducted by ComRes, found that only 38 per cent of Christians surveyed agreed that “Catholic popes are true ambassadors of the Christian faith”. The figure dropped to 16 per cent among Baptists.
Several Protestant ministers – some of whom are involved in ecumenical work – said they were not surprised by the low level of support for the Pope.
They said that even Protestants who work with Catholics at a grassroots level are still likely to find the idea of papal authority “particularly difficult”…
The Rev Jeremy Brooks, the director of ministry at the Protestant Truth Society, said: “All true Protestants believe the papacy to be unbiblical, unnecessary and unhelpful. Churches governed by scripture alone rather than the traditions of men or the fashions of the moment are what broken Britain so desperately needs.”
Authority can be “particularly difficult”, can’t it. A tough pill to swallow sometimes for all of us. But, like most needed medicine, it is better taken now rather than later.
And to Rev Brooks of the Protestant “Truth” Society: given your disdain for the Catholic Church, that very Church established by our Savior for the salvation of the world…fight against her and her earthly shepherd if you feel you must, for I believe you are a sincere man who loves the Lord. But brother, someday you and all of us in Christ’s flock will see the sad schism for what it is, and it will be a bittersweet day. That is a certain thing, for Christ is not a liar, and He does not operate a shell game, or sell us a bill of goods. He promised that His historic Church, recognized and authenticated by identification with Peter and the Apostles, would endure; that the Holy Spirit would lead her in all truth; and that He would never leave her. Your protestant pursuit of truth requires you to deny, at least implicitly, each of these promises of Christ. It really does.
“Amen, amen I say to you, he who receives the one I send, receives me; he who receives me, receives the One who sent me.”
It’s Jesus calling: “Can you hear Me now?”
“HE WHO HEARS YOU,HEARS ME” – Luke 10:16
Is it legitimate to use these words of Jesus to support the teaching commission of the Church? Vatican II said yes strongly, in “Lumen gentium”
P20: “This sacred Council teaches that the Bishops, from divine institution, have taken the place of the Apostles, as the pastors of the Church: he who hears them, hears Christ; he who spurns them, spurns Christ, and Him who sent Christ”. And in LG P 25 the Council even taught that the Bishops in unison with the successor of Peter and with each other can even teach infallibly. Pius XII in “Humani generis” (DS 3855) said the same thing about Lk 10:16: “Nor should we think that the things taught in Encyclical letters do not of themselves call for assent, on the plea that in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the Supreme power of their Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, of which it is also correct to say: ‘He who hears you,hears me.’” Pius XII went on to explain that this does not apply to everything in Encyclicals: it applies only when the Popes in their “Acta” expressly make a judgement on something that was debated up to then among theologians. Then it is removed from debate, and falls under the promise of Christ.
An objector asserts: “The Scripture clearly states that Jesus said these words to the 72 Disciples, among whom were women, and there is no evidence that any of the 72 were from among the 12 Apostles – no evidence Peter was among them.” One will look in vain to see where the Scripture “clearly states” that there were women among that group. And while it does not mention the 12 or Peter specially, it is unthinkable that they would not be among the 72 since they were the chosen core of all the followers of Jesus. So our objector thinks it quite clear Jesus gave authority to women, but there is no evidence He gave it also to the Apostles!
In reply we note that according to Vatican II: “Since Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted by the Same Spirit by whom it was written, to rightly draw out the sense of the sacred texts, one must look not less diligently at the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, taking into account the Tradition of the whole Church, and the analogy of faith.” So, if we look at the passage in question narrowly, ignoring what Vatican II calls for, we would say that Jesus indeed did speak to the 72. But there is much more.
We know that Jesus Himself wanted only a gradual revelation of Himself and of His Church and mission. He did not at once say: “Before Abraham was, I am.” Rather, He let the truths be seen gradually, a bit at a time. The fullness of this revelation was to come with the descent of the Holy Spirit, as He Himself said in John 16:13: “When He, the Spirit of Truth comes, He will lead you into all truth.” So here in this Lucan text Jesus begins, but does not complete His commission. He does, on a trial mission, give a teaching authority to the 72 so that he who hears them, hears Jesus. He completed that commission later to Peter and the Twelve, especially in the words recorded in Matthew 16:19:to Peter alone: “Whatever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven. Two fine Protestant scholars, W. F. Albright (in his day often called the Dean of American Scripture scholars) and C. S. Mann, in “Anchor Bible, Matthew,” p. 198, write: “Peter’s authority to ‘bind’ or ‘release’ will be a carrying out of decisions made in Heaven. His teaching and disciplinary activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven’s will.” For those words, binding and loosing,were well known in the teaching of the rabbis of the time. Their usual meaning was to impose or remove an obligation by an authoritative decision or teaching. These words of Mt 16:19 were repeated to all what seems to be the twelve in Matthew 18:18. That they were not meant for all disciples but just for the
Apostles is confirmed by Mt 28:16-29, explicitly to the Twelve. Earlier, at the Last Supper, in John 13:20 Jesus said to the Twelve: “Amen, amen I say to you, he who receives the one I send, receives me; he who receives me, receives the One who sent me.”More of the context of the whole of Scripture is this: at once after the ascension, the Apostles began their mission of teaching In Acts 1:15-26 a replacement for one of the Twelve is chosen, Matthias. Acts 2:42 reports that the people “devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles” and in Acts 5:13: “No one of the rest dared to join himself to them [the Apostles] but the people magnified them.” So all did understand from the start that it was the Apostles, and they alone who had the commission from Christ to teach. St. Paul constantly teaches with authority. Pope St. Clement I, in an Epistle to Corinth c. 95 AD, intervened with authority. He said: “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of Bishop. As a result, having received full foreknowledge, they appointed those we have mentioned, and meanwhile added a provision that if these would fall asleep [die] other approved men should receive their ministry.”
St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, who had listened to St. Polycarp telling of the preaching of St. John the Apostle, wrote that since it was long to go through the succession of Bishops in all the churches, he would speak of Rome, “founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, which holds the tradition and faith announced by the Apostles, coming down by the succession of Bishops even to us…..It is necessary that every church…agree with this church because of its more important principality…in which the tradition coming from the Apostles has always been kept….”
At the early Council of Ephesus, in 431 A.D. even though it was an Eastern error in question, the Pope sent delegates, who asserted without being contradicted by anyone there: “There is no doubt, it has been known to all centuries, that the holy and blessed Apostle Peter, the prince and head and pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ…. He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successors gives judgment.” Twenty years later the Council of Chalcedon on hearing the letter of Pope Leo exclaimed: “This is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. We all believe thus…. Peter has spoken through Leo.”
The General Council of Constantinople in 870 taught (DS 661): “Since we believe that the word of the Lord, which Christ said to the holy Apostles and his disciples, “He who receives you, receives me” and “he who spurns you, spurns me”was said to all those too who after them became Supreme Pontiffs and shepherds in the Catholic Church…we define that no one at all of the potentates of the world should dishonor or move them from their sees, but should judge them worthy of all reverence and honor….”
We conclude,that Vatican II, and Pius XII and the General Council of Constantinople were well justified in taking Luke 10:16 as the foundation of the teaching authority of the Apostles and their successors. It was part of His gradual revelation of self and of His Church, it was a start of the trajectory that was to be made clearer as time went on,as we have seen..
As for women, Scripture consistently forbids them to teach with authority. 1 Cor 14:34 says “the women must be silent in the Church”. First Timothy 2:12 insists: “I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be in silence.” So, to suppose that of course women received the teaching authority in Lk 10:16 and to add that there is no sign it applied to Peter and the Apostles – this is merely completely biased special pleading.
