According to the Gospel, any sinful act that we commit against the spirit (even a sinful thought, such as eyeing someone we oughtn't -- according to Christ's dictum that we should pluck out our eye in such an instance) is as bad as any other. Eyeing someone, or serial killing, same thing. There is no sense of gradation of sins in the Gospel.
Taking the name of the Lord in vain is the same as blowing up a village of deaf people for no reason, according to the Gospel.
In law, however, which Luther sets as over and against the Gospel, as the kingdom of the left, we have gradations. Taking the Lord's name in vain is not a capital crime (although it IS in Islam, a capital crime, if the Danish cartoon debacle is any indication), but killing someone else, much less taking out a village of people, is a crime. The first is not punished, the second one is.
In the Gospel, hurting one's own soul in any way is the definition of crime. In law, hurting others is much worse, and especially attacking or in some way destroying their body. If you kill someone, it might not hurt their soul at all. If you take the Lord's name in vain, however, it hurts your soul, but may not hurt your body at all. Therefore, it is not a crime in American law, but it is a sin.
One-kingdom philosophies conflate the two.
Two-kingdom philosophies separate them, and argue that there is an animal existence, in which theft, murder, and libel are worse crimes than thinking badly about your parents, or thinking bad thoughts about God (or even thinking that God doesn't exist).
So in a one-kingdom philosophy, GM's idea that slavery and working at Wal-Mart are more or less the same thing makes sense.
But in two-kingdom philosophy, there is a stronger sense of the gradation between the two, and that slavery is far far worse on a sliding scale, because your liberty and health and time are totally impaired, whereas working at Wal-Mart they are not (you can always quit, it's only eight hours a day, much of which you spend shooting the breeze, you can't be killed or whipped by your boss, and even if there aren't any health benefits, you can still get worker's comp if you drop a case of beer on your feet with the loading truck.
Political correctness is a one-kingdom philosophy. Saying something or thinking something bad about another race or sex is racism, or sexism. In these cases, one might not be physically killed, but one is therefore rejected by the group, and faces a possible social annihilation, whereas shooting someone in the head is not always such a bad thing, because you were raised by mean parents, and you couldn't help what you did. Thinking something, and doing something, are somehow conflated, and the worst crimes are crimes of thought, especially when you think badly about another whole group. But hurting an individual doesn't really matter so much. You didn't really do it. Your upbringing did it.
The sense of gradation of Luther's two kingdoms clarifies our responsibilities to God (which are up to Him to punish) and our separate responsibilities to our neighbors (which are up to the state to punish).
Luther makes sense.
Mostly, everyone else -- doesn't.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
In law, however, which Luther sets as over and against the Gospel, as the kingdom of the left, we have gradations.
This makes Luther a Pharisee.
Why?
My understanding of the Pharisees is that they believed that the Law, as handed down by Moses and explicated by the scribes, was the path to holiness. They weren't terribly interested in the "law" as Kirby seems to use the word here, meaning something akin to politics, I think. They held themselves separate from worldly concerns (the word "Pharisee" is Aramaic/Hebrew for "separated"). The scribal tradition was to interpret the Mosaic law in a very stringent way, so that it will not be violated in even the most minute sense. That is, they wanted to always err on the extreme side of caution. Their lives, they believed, were sanctified by the joyous and minute adherence to the law.
I don't think Luther fits this mold. Luther, above all, emphasized that we are sanctified by grace, not by the law. The law isn't unimportant, but it isn't the path to holiness. If anything, it was the Catholic church during Luther's time that was Pharisaical, and Luther was reacting against it. The modern Catholic church, it seems to me, is less Pharisaical than it was, but it still has strong tendencies in that direction.
We have to admire George Grady's precision.
There are a lot of different interpretations of the Pharisees, and then there is the general sense of it being someone who puts the letter of the law above the spirit.
thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain...does not appear in the gospels
the words of jesus tend to stress the individual's personal responsibility for actions and thoughts....rather than torah for the sake of torah
man was not made for the sabbath but the sabbath for man (kind)
there is a definite "behavioural" element in the words of the sermon on the mount...jesus seems to be wise to the hypocracy of legal determinism....he seems to believe that any persons' own conscience if carefully formed is adequate in discerning the tension between right and wrong...and the will properly directed is capable of choosing the good...but there is the expectation of the intellect engaged....a knowing
the whole conflict with st paul and the new churches was over the extent to which torah can apply to nonjewish christians...the ruling was essentially that christ has transcended the law...his passion death and resurrection are the new law....and a persons willingness to show their love of christ was by far superior to the daily attending to legal prescrption
justice cannot be blind
take the wrap from her eyes
in this country we are driven in the legal system by a sort of knee-jerk legalism which emphasizes the punitive aspect of justice and little else
mercy grace and truth can be a way of justice
we create an environment where it is possible for kids to play with guns and perhaps try to work out the emotional complexity of adolescence by cutting loose and killing with the guns they've grown up with on the tv or on the screen or in their backyards
and then we try them as adults for killing people with the guns we have in effect given them and set the stage for
the concept of "the rule of law" distorts what earlier generations of americans knew...that law in itself is not the governing principle but people are....we've dropped the ball there...there is justice but it can be bought so how true is it?
jesus is saying look into your own heart
luther sounds for all his adamancy of getting to the real jesus he sounds like a coward...basically saying that the words don't really apply here...none of us are up to the self examination required by the sermon on the mount so let's just set up a machine of laws which address the needs and breakdowns in society and save grace and mercy for heaven
law for the sake of law has bred nothing but the weird cops and paramilitary goons we see today...and the likes of judge judy...these hyped up fighters who have been indoctrinated to think they are the good guys
ultimately violence calls its own shots for individuals and for whole societies
sin speaks to the sinner in the depths of his heart
Political correctness is a one-kingdom philosophy. Saying something or thinking something bad about another race or sex is racism, or sexism. In these cases, one might not be physically killed, but one is therefore rejected by the group, and faces a possible social annihilation, whereas shooting someone in the head is not always such a bad thing, because you were raised by mean parents, and you couldn't help what you did. Thinking something, and doing something, are somehow conflated, and the worst crimes are crimes of thought, especially when you think badly about another whole group. But hurting an individual doesn't really matter so much. You didn't really do it. Your upbringing did it.
Um, no.
This is an inane philosophy.
Under the Gospel, killing someone is bad. Thinking about killing someone is just as bad -- i.e. don't pretend that you're somehow an innocent if you go around all day thinking about ways to kill people.
The laws of Jesus have nothing to do with State law and they are certainly above it. Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's -- and he submitted to the punishment of the state -- but he also acted without trying to get around these laws (i.e. he didn't try to run from Jerusalem, he preached &c on Sabbath, etc.).
The laws of Jesus (as exemplified in the Sermon on the Mount) require us to be better than the Law -- either of the State or of the Torah. They are both simpler and harder to get right -- not only are you expected not to commit adultery, but not even to think about someone else. It's a difficult thing to do.
That's why Jesus shows compassion. That's why he says to always forgive someone (or 77/539 times).
It seems that Luther thought "Gosh, this Sermon on the Mount stuff is very difficult to do -- let me make it easier by saying we don't have to do it until we're dead." He then says temporal, State law (created by men) is "over and against the Gospel."
Combined with Sola Fide this is quite interesting. If you have faith, you're saved, but you don't have to do anything that resembles being saved -- you can just go on in your old life (that you are supposed to be DEAD to), in the knowledge that you're written down in the book of life. Don't worry about all those difficult things that Jesus said to do and demonstrated can be done. Forget about them until you're dead.
Sounds like a devilish proposition to me.
It seems that Luther thought "Gosh, this Sermon on the Mount stuff is very difficult to do -- let me make it easier by saying we don't have to do it until we're dead." He then says temporal, State law (created by men) is "over and against the Gospel."
Combined with Sola Fide this is quite interesting. If you have faith, you're saved, but you don't have to do anything that resembles being saved -- you can just go on in your old life (that you are supposed to be DEAD to), in the knowledge that you're written down in the book of life. Don't worry about all those difficult things that Jesus said to do and demonstrated can be done. Forget about them until you're dead.
Sounds like a devilish proposition to me.
That's not what Luther believed or said. He never claimed that you could live a life of sin, with no attempt to live life by walking a good path, and that was okay. On the contrary, he very much insisted that you had to strive very hard to live as well as you could. However, he also knew that it is impossible for someone to live up to that ideal. Try as he did to live a holy life, he failed again and again.
Since he believed that God would not require us to do something that we are incapable of doing for salvation, that must not be the source of our salvation. If what we do is not the source of our salvation, then what is? Luther's study and contemplation led him to the conclusion that we are saved by God's grace, and God's grace alone, as a gift. Because of this gift, we are called to live good lives, as Christ has instructed us.
Luther also came to this conclusion as a reaction to what he saw as massive corruption within the Catholic church. Many people in the Catholic church and its hierarchy were living lives that Luther saw as sinful, then asking for and receiving absolution from the church in exchange for some acts of penance or remuneration, but without striving in any way to change their behavior. That is, he saw the church teaching that the forgiveness of your sins came from the act of saying some prayers for penance, buying a few indulgences, and getting your priest's blessing. He rejected this. He came to believe that no amount of priest's indulgences and blessings can earn you forgiveness and sanctification; but rather, this salvation is a gift of God's grace, and you either accept the gift and strive to live a life of gratitude for it, or you do not. You make that choice.
George-
What you say is at least logical. ..
But then, according to Kirby, you can just jump back into the world and leave the Sermon on the Mount, indeed the whole Gospels for the "next world."
From the Bible I read, it says we must both accept our grace and change our behavior to follow Jesus.
Kirby says we can't follow Jesus, so we might as well not even try.
george grady
i do not wish to take issue with the historical leanings toward corruption in the catholic church
lord knows lord knows it's true
one can argue equally that the incessant fracturing that stems from the mainline protestant movements is a consequence of corruption....sin seeps under the church door all the time
the catholic approach to sin and corruption has been that there is a chance with a constant reminder of gospel and painting and preaching and serving of the poor that the message might break through ...despite the horrid aspects of humanity...that we keep lit the true fires of faith is enough....we can't presume to modify the beahaviour of the individuals....although in the end it did meet with success....it has met thus with success...the kiss....the wreathe.....even the parties....are now sanctified
profound bow
i should hope the proestants of the world would have the wherewithall to forgive the church
we've always admitted our failures
we are a ship of fools
and we know it
idiots in the face of modernity
always way behind the trends
stupidly campaigning for lost causes
like care for the poor
health care
education of the masses
intellectual engagement with the world
service to community
constant prayer
expressions in the arts
notre dame football (o just he he just a joke)
canon law is interesting
it is only binding insofar as it is known
yet it is voluminous
and is used to unravel legal problems of divorce governance of institutions and liturgy....always behind the scene....always the quiet council...it is a huge body of law which does not presume to influence anyone,,,it is there as a resource and used extensivley...there is the added presumption that if people know and use canon law they will be exempt by their virtue by following christ ....freed from the constraints of human secular law
being good as a person means being above the law...a life is focussed away from even thinking of things which would cause discord....sadly this fails at times....ho hum.....when's lunch
catholics are people like gm hopkins whose imaginations are warped....like chesterton whose jokes were skewed....like tolkein whose imagination was really warped....like levertov like merton
luther's critique of rome was not meant to be a schism yet there was no other path after about a hundred years
yet the church has always mainained an openness to reconciliation
(LET THEM BE ANETHAMA)
cough cough !!! oh
did you hear something??
OFF WITH THEIR FRIGGINHEADS
now father quiet down
no need to get vengeful now
we're having a nice chat here
THEY CAN KISS MY ASS
now father please don't be disruptive
please forgive father alphonse he's over 100 yrs old
he's just entertaining himself
aren't you father
PHUQ OFF YOU LITTLE BASTARD
that was a blessing
in case you didn't notice
the catholic church banked on education in the 17th century that educating as many people as possible was the way
so armies of nuns and priests and brothers hit the trail
and built schools
mayb they was fools
my brothers
our final education will be liturgical
perhaps we will learn to pray together
in the ancient way of
quiet dignity
I'LL RIP THOSE BASTARDS A NEW...
now now father let's get your meds together...time for your jello
peace
j
GM, I think what Luther was saying (I think George Grady has a better handle on this than I do) is that there are certain MINIMUMS that are set by law. After that, the rest is something we have to try to attain, but that ultimately, it's like trying to reach the speed of light, or doing something else that is impossible by its very nature. We can't be exactly like Christ. Christ, after all, was God. To think that we can be perfect, in that sense, is hubris.
But we can at least follow the ten commandments. Even doing that (the minimum) is difficult, but it's attainable.
To attain faith may yet allow us to do things like walk on water, but don't count on it. Peter couldn't do it, and he's the rock on which the whole church is founded.
Paul said too in Romans that he does the things that he shouldn't, and doesn't do the things that he should. How am I, a mere grunt in Christ's army, to outdo Paul and Peter?
One of the problems I have with the more evangelical churches, including yours, is that it asks too much, and in doing so, encourages a kind of frustration. We cannot do the impossible.
Luther winked to some extent at the imperfectibility of humanity. He said, people are going to want to have sex. So therefore, let's let priests get married.
Sorry to JH, but this allows at least a minimum of human sexuality into the picture.
Luther doesn't open the whole bag of perversions. He doesn't say that S/M, and pedophilia, and all the rest of the stuff that swept into the mainstream after the 60s is going to be ok.
But maybe letting in a little lets out the whole thing? I don't think so. I think people can refrain from adultery, from pedophilia, from S & M, at the very least.
But to never have a sexual thought, ever, is kind of tough, since that's how we're made.
I think George Grady is right that Luther is a kind of realist about humanity's limitations.
We can't be perfect any more than we can travel at the speed of light, walk on water, or multiply loaves. Luther wasn't asking for miracles. We could do the minimums.
The minimums are a this-world realism.
Miracles will take place in the next world, where we really will be able to be loving all day long, and in all kinds of ways, and be free of sin.
Everyone on this side of heaven is a sinner, struggling to at least remain within the law. It's do-able.
And it's enough.
perhaps there is no greater witness to the inherent transcedent abilities ingrained into the warp and woof of humanity....the power and will to do without pleasure....the power and the will to acknowledge all humainty in the light that revelation hs bestowed....if the intution for the kingdom of god is genuine and objectively possible and desrieable then to fast or to sacrifice for thehigher good is managable and in fact admirable and blessed in an odd way
even though most religious people die in a state of relative anonymity...having forsaken all for the kingdom....without the intentional expectation that humans can be good people....and that there is a way to be self conscious more than self righteous
and that there are ways to forge peace and knowledge and beauty in the world....if these avenues did not exist would people do them naturally??? - - i think luther perhaps doubted his own sexual power and felt that there were no good celibate priests or nuns....when in fact that vast majority were noble nad honest and decent people....all less visible because of their humility in contrast to the sensationalism that abounds around sexual stories
maybe luther just had the power to forge a big and somewhat necessary mistake in nature
like a rumble that kills
and maybe some good comes from it
rome however will become more like the eastern orthodox than they will become like the protestants
luther carried on a misunderstanding of catholicism by the semi nomadic warrior artisans of the north (read simon schama)
martin it seems was repelled not just by the decadence but by the efforts of the world handed down from charlemagne to provide order and livlihood for people...he wanted the polis seperated from the religious foundations...his biggest mistake but we forgive him for perhaps now the dream of more and more people finally learning and knowing scripture can bear some fruit...but not after centuries of really screwed up interpretations of things...due to ignorance handed down from the translators...but now in the 21st century we can say there are thousnads and thousands of literate bible readers...still they must forge open minds...perhaps forge open their own minds...the bible is one of those books which needs to be read and heard in the context of prayer and ritual...or else it gets too wierd
luther led the way to a christianity lived without sacrifice...something kierkegaard wrailed against
and he opened the gates for serious atheism...for existentialism....for the reversal of essence and existence...in short...for Faust
if people would simply appreciate the poetry of john of the cross the ingorance and differences would be dispelled
don't let the ruby red shoes fool you
the catholics are here to stay
strike up the allemande
j
oh
and catholics have believed in have always believed in be fruitful and multiply...with occasional misunderstanding of the term fruitful...lots and lots of children...with the beauty and livliness of children the world has a chance...hope remains alive...human chaos is assured...as is comedy
even the buddhists believe in the vow for some of perpetual abstinence
we would not have the bible today had not many old monk scribes labored endlessly at copying and illuminating....dedicating more to propagating the word rather than the species
luther harbored a secret desire to live as a monk again
he learned the hard way st pauls warnings about life in the kitchen with the woman of the house
we was divided within himself
my new rock band
THE CONCUBINES
i manage the girls
j
Lutherans and Catholics signed a mutual non-aggression pact in 1995, finding various means of accord. I haven't read this document.
I'm curious to know: how many of us believe in creationism?
Does JH, does GM, does George, who else? I assume that Sally is down with Darwin?
I'm with Darwin, with certain Lamarckian reservations that are more intuitions than anything I can put more precisely.
Many Lutherans remain Creationists, and won't, for instance, go into museums of Natural History.
I go into them all the time. I love it. I insist that it must be true that we are a species of ape, along with that other strange figure among us, the Sasquatch (I once had a student years and years ago who resembled a Sasquatch, and who I think somehow managed to fool the admissions committee at the U. of Washington -- he was a good student, too, although he didn't say much).
hello mrs sasquatch
your son was seen recently in the company of one kirby olson
does that name ring a bell
he's been suspected recently of blowing bubbles
in all the high class restaurants in seattle
is your son familiar with this poet
mrs sasquatch ...mrs sasquatch
ah
she fell asleep
creationism
creationism
creationism
i guess
well you know it's like
well there's all this stuff
and we didn't put it here
so something must've happened
and it looks so inviting and so valuable for understanding
i will vote for creationism
as long as we agree it is still happening
but the genesis story is better poetry
i look with scorn at the scientists who live with the smug certainty that they know when obviously we don't it is still alluring and mindboggling and we apprehend it somehow...but our certainties about the world are evidence for me that man has also apprehended an order and a "design" in things and thus is given to codifying the whole mess
i do believe the planet earth still has more to tell us about how to survive here and the resources are aplenty to do so if man would just be just
ahhhhhhchhhooooooo!!!!!
yet i believe god is pure act
a pure one act play
a henny youngman affair
with zingers happening
a mile a minute
we are on an epistemological tumblecourse toward god
the world is terribly fascinating
the world remains even for all man's worst intentions and because of some of his best it is still a very beautiful and unspeakably mysterious place
i'm glad to be here
it's a trip
what if monkeys are actually the remnant of human experiment gone awry some 400,000 yrs ago too much inbreeding but enough biological strength to make it through in a mutated state?? maybe there is de-creationism happening at the same time
there's an illusion in giving every living thing or kind a name
j
as i was rushing off to mass i realized that the synthesis i've been forging for awhile about the controversy of evolution vs creatioism changed radically for me when john paul II the previous pope stated that evolution is a viable theory and yet another way of speaking about creation...in effect he states the argument is really about two ways of speaking about the same thing...so in my mind i think in terms of this synthesis....and yet there is need to clarify...my earliest thinking about all this came via pierre tielhard de chardin sj a french jesuit who sought to merge the language of revelation with the language of scientific discovery
evolution alone while a decent way to describe something in the way we observe the natural world does not suffice to explain beauty or the rich diversity and the unsettling singularity of all life even is we speak in terms of uiversals
so in my mind i was aware of confusing the ideas of creationism but not quite sure as to how this confusion rests....i think it rests in the notion that i think of it as generally all one event of which we are ever a part...the principle of heisenburg regarding the impure factor of the scientist as necessary for regarding any experiment also applies to the general principle of evolution....we can conceive of a theory but the conception of that theory somehow changes the world we wish to observe and codify and explain....thus for my understanding creationism is still happening one day is like a million years or ten million or a billion god's got all the time in the world
and i think we were actually descendant from trout or possibly bears
i think the monkey thesis is overwrought
my anscestors were trout
j
So when Christians assign to Allah a "partner" i.e. Christ...don't you think that they are going to have some 'splainin' to do Kirby?
Because...that is what makes Christians, Christians.
They worship something other than Allah.
I'd say you are truly in error from the get go Kirby and anything that follows an errant belief will also be in error.
Disbelief and the listening to advice other than the advice of Allah is the Original Sin.
All other sins follow that one commandment and when you listen to the likes of ignorant people you will not be helped by anyone on Judgement Day.
You will have to explain your mistake directly to the judge.
No need to make up silly and yes, inane propositions. Allah's law is very simple.
JH -- there was the idea especially in the 19th century -- Farrady for example -- that God's laws could be researched by science. Einstein himself held that view, when he said that God didn't play with dice, as he rejected some viewpoint (I forget which).
Meg -- your posts always seem to make a threat. Unless you believe, you're gonna get it. Otherwise, they lack any logic. Your only inducement is terror.
I believe that terror must always be rejected. I prefer logic.
GM -- the problem with your thesis that we should all try to do the max is that we can't, and therefore we feel failure, and then there is a kind of giving up. Luther instead established a minimum. If you do more than that, you feel pretty good, and that's uplifting, rather than depressing.
I think if you ask everybody to be an angel, they all feel like devils.
Luther realized that, and said, in a tone of forgiveness, we are all sinners, but we can do the minimum (Ten Commandments).
And perhaps with just a little help from grace, we can even do something more. But he denied that we can be perfect.
A lot of denominations puke over this. Eastern Orthodox believe we can be perfect. Stalin, for instance, was Eastern Orthodox. He thought we could be perfect little communists.
Luther argued that there is always something selfish in everything we attempt to do. And to therefore be humble, and accept this.
Luther was a clever psychologist.
Thus, Two Kingdoms FUNCTIONS.
It may not be very pure, but it works.
allah's law is not as simple as
sacrificial death
intending to heal us
from the darkness
of the perennial affliction
jesus is not a partner to god
jesus is god
truly god and truly man
one in being with the father
through him all things came into being
tis all very simple
kirby
tielhard de chardin
was influenced was indeed urged to read the most up to date philophical scientific writings of the late 19th nad early 20th century....jesuits were rather perspicacious...but also at times quite precocious in their reading...he in fact absorbed all of darwin it seems and many of the english science/philosophy ilk like the huxelys...chardin had the notion that all thinking of mankind was moving to the OMEGA point...swirling in a moving conical motion upward to full being with god...he's been credited with discovering peking man and has been smudged with being part of the piltdown incident...the incident that stephen gould ran on and on about....yet int he end gould got quite excited about the popes statement that evolution was a viable theory...gould took this to mean that in fact this says evolution is a law because popes don't say anything in a vacuum...i don't know if he was being sardonic in his final writings or if he believed that in fact the darwinist system was irrefutable...i think there are a number of factors which lend themselves to adequate criticism....#1 - no-one has ever seen evolution happen
j
Meg - a quick and sincere question.
In Islam, is humility seen as a virtue?
it occurs to me that for anyone
putting oneself within hearing of the words of jesus and reflecting upon those words contains the possiblity of life changing
i would argue that in luther's churches the proclaimed words of christ in (from) the gospel were far more important for cohesion and continuity than the ten commandments
all christian witness works
some have more staying power than others
last summer i had the good fortune to experience a gathering of noncatholic christians for informal prayer song and witness and i had to say that whatever was intended to happen there it works
we have just completed a week of prayer for christian unity
the pilgrimage is long
the lines are erratic
some fall back
some surge ahead
some dawdle along the way
smokin cigarettes
yet where the words of christ are apparent
things are likely to change in the hearts of humankind
he prayed that all might be one in grace and truth
j
I agree with you JH that in spite of denominational disputes all Christians are good eggs, at least until Easter, when they hatch, and then some begin slightly, ever so slightly, bad eggs.
Some even crow like roosters about their Christianity.
That's bad, Jesus said. Better to creep about in the night doing good works.
I have been so swamped lately, I can only read the posts and comments. Skimming mostly.
Yet I have a comment for JH who said:
"i should hope the proestants of the world would have the wherewithall to forgive the church
we've always admitted our failures
we are a ship of fools
and we know it"
Oh???
Then why doesn't the RCC rescind the excommunication of Luther? Your comments continue to sound as if those early protesters against the corruption of Leo, chose to leave of their own volition.
Yes, if only the Protestants would forgive the Catholics!
Luther was kicked out. The ball is in the court of the RCC to make restitution.
WW
the protestant critique has been fully acknowledged in the RCC WW my friend think of it
everything is in the vernacular now well almost everything vestiges of old latin persist but in reality the notion of scripture available and coherent for the masses was a protestant movement and the catholics got on board OK maybe three hundred years later...but hey it was difficult for us
the table is always set for reconciliation...where the church stands now the RCC stands that is is about as far as she's going to go...liturgically she will not follow the patterns of the protestants too much at stake within the ritual form
i know protestant churches make a point of welcoming all to the comunion table but the catholics are more hesitant...i guess because we respect the whole trainload of theology that comes to us from the apostles and the tradition....where i worship all are welcome...but the catholic mainline intellectual tradition is preached
i do believe one day we will all be little c catholics...how that will look how we will worship is still up in the air and interesting...i think we should solve the thing with a tug-o-war over a mudpit
or kirby and i can duke it out in a ring with oversize boxing gloves
with a light show going on too
the gospel today is the call of the 11
i'm going to follow
j
kirby i don't think the eastern orthodox maintain the belief that we can be perfect
if anything they've suspended any presupposition about human beahviour in or out of the spirtual track of christianity
they are predominantly liturgical people who keep an ongoing vigil of reading and ritual...and it does not appear as if they are too worried abut anyone getting the message or not although they do and they become extrememly devotional people devoted to the prayers and the chants and the icons....during the average service it is not uncommon to see the men step out for a coffee and a cig and the women roam around lighting candles and rush home to move the laundry and return for the bread at the end the body of christ for the journey
the orthodox monks are hardcore and maintain a rigour which predates christianity that awareness sometime amongst the greeks and persians at the same time that man possesses extraordinary spiritual power if it can only be harnessed and formed in the right way..but in the end the fact is stated in all the funerals that we are sinners in need
tne human soul inclines naturally like a child to the breast to the possibilities of perfection
the 10 commands are a good way to learn the ropes
remember the exodus
that's our story
j
Kirby,
I'm curious to know: how many of us believe in creationism?
Does JH, does GM, does George, who else? I assume that Sally is down with Darwin?
This is a bit late in reply, but I don't believe in creationism in the way that term is usually understood these days. I believe God created the earth, but I also believe He has no problem with us looking at His creation and trying to understand it.
jh,
the protestant critique has been fully acknowledged in the RCC
I don't believe this is true. Other than the dropping of Latin, where has the Roman Catholic Church acknowledged even a little of the Protestant critique? Can Catholic priests generally marry? Do Catholics pray to and for the dead? Do Catholics teach the concept of purgatory? Are indulgences still official Catholic doctrine? Is Luther's concept of justification by faith alone accepted by Catholics? And these are just issues on which Lutherans disagree with Catholics. Try talking with a Baptist sometime. Unless, of course, by "acknowledge", you meant the RCC saying, "We're right, you're wrong, and we get to decide, so there."
everything is in the vernacular now well almost everything vestiges of old latin persist but in reality the notion of scripture available and coherent for the masses was a protestant movement and the catholics got on board OK maybe three hundred years later...but hey it was difficult for us
When the Latin liturgy got started, it, too, was the vernacular. The RCC knew this, of course. The insistence on Latin was about control.
the table is always set for reconciliation...where the church stands now the RCC stands that is is about as far as she's going to go...liturgically she will not follow the patterns of the protestants too much at stake within the ritual form
It's not really true that the table is set for reconciliation, if it can only be achieved on the RCC's terms. And really, liturgy isn't the problem. I don't know of any Protestants who begrudge the Catholics their liturgy, even if they don't use it themselves. Many Protestant churches in fact are liturgical, including Lutheranism.
i guess because we respect the whole trainload of theology that comes to us from the apostles and the tradition....where i worship all are welcome...but the catholic mainline intellectual tradition is preached
Are you implying that Protestants have no respect for theology, the apostles, and Christian tradition? I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Disagreement with Catholics about them is not the same as lack of respect of them. And, the problem is not that Catholic churches teach their traditions, it's Catholic insistence that they are the only proper tradition and that they have the authority to unilaterally declare others illegitimate. And when some Protestants do the same, they are equally wrong.
i do believe one day we will all be little c catholics
We already are all little c catholics. "Catholic" means "universal", and all Christians are part of the catholic (i.e., universal) church. Roman Catholic appropriation of the term doesn't change this.
i know protestant churches make a point of welcoming all to the comunion table but the catholics are more hesitant...
It's not just that the Catholic church doesn't allow other Christians to their communion tables (which makes we wonder how they dare call themselves "catholic"), but they instruct their laity that they are not to commune in other churches, either. So, who did you say was ready for reconciliation again?
there are some married catholic priests men who have taken refuge in the life of the RC church from lutheran or episcopalian communities...we miantain along with the orthodox communion that from the outset there were men and women who were set apart for the purpose of ritual...and they sought to imitate christ in their very lives by living without marriage and aspiring to perfect chastity...the mandates in the 11th and 12th and 13th centuries which more or less established "celibacy" as a rule came about because of the corruption and injustices between church and noble families and perhaps some not so noble...i'm convinced that the modern critique from say humanist psychology is all but negligible in understanding the great spiritual inroads and personalities which have come about because of total dedication to christ
how many made it
to perfect chastity
i don't know
catholics do believe in the community of saints and the eternal life of every soul...we do not pray to the dead but to the truly living
purgatory is still on the books but it has been theologically modified in the last 100 yrs
but in effect it still holds
some would say purgatory is this world
indulgences are to some extent still used...yet it has nothing to do with presuming to influence redemption
justification by faith alone is not in the catholic ethos
faith and good works is the thing
catholic teaching tends to be more in line with the epistle of james
grace however is free and we are unworthy
the early church fathers basil gregory of nyssa etc were effectively lost upon the protestants until very recently
it was sort of a surprise when 150 yrs ago von harnack realized that christianity had 1500 yrs of development before luther
the flourishing in ecumenism is due to the availability of the earliest christian writing across the board
it is not to say that the ecclesial communities do not give witness to christ..it is more to say that the best of christian teaching has been handed down from generation to generation in a fairly consistent and ongoing manner....a very disciplined manner
the challenge is always to keep alive the power of liturgy and its connection to social justice
in general i think the table is open and the channels for discussion are constantly cleared in rome...whatever the merits of the RC church they need to be understood in context
the centrality for me of the communion table calls to mind our link to ancient israel as well
the meeting point of old and new testament
don't get me wrong
the church is a very difficult family
some would say hopelessly dysfuctional
but she's my family and i love her
j
there are some married catholic priests men who have taken refuge in the life of the RC church from lutheran or episcopalian communities
Yes, I know this. That is why I asked if Catholic priests can generally marry.
we miantain along with the orthodox communion that from the outset there were men and women who were set apart for the purpose of ritual
I don't think that anyone has any problem with permitting and even encouraging this. However, it is precisely in this conflation of the permissible with the required that the Catholic church shows its overstepping.
catholics do believe in the community of saints and the eternal life of every soul...we do not pray to the dead but to the truly living
Pretty much all Christians believe in the community of saints and the eternal life of the soul. It is, however, not clear that those condemned in the end will have eternal life. Their ultimate fate has not been told to us. So the "eternal life of every soul" is making assumptions that may not be true.
purgatory is still on the books but it has been theologically modified in the last 100 yrs
but in effect it still holds
some would say purgatory is this world
Purgatory is still on the books, but it isn't in the Book. I don't want to overemphasize the New Testament writings, though. They are important, but I know that they aren't everything. That said, there is little reason to believe that the early church had any such concept. Caesarius of Arles certainly insisted on it in the late 400's as did pope Gregory in the late 500's. Cyprian (bishop of Carthage, martyred in 258) and Augustine of Hippo considered it earlier, but they knew it to be speculation. The RCC insists that they know purgatory to be a fact and essential to the faith, but they don't and it isn't.
indulgences are to some extent still used...yet it has nothing to do with presuming to influence redemption
No, it has to do with presuming to influence temporal punishment for sin. It's still presumption.
the early church fathers basil gregory of nyssa etc were effectively lost upon the protestants until very recently
This is untrue.
it is not to say that the ecclesial communities do not give witness to christ..it is more to say that the best of christian teaching has been handed down from generation to generation in a fairly consistent and ongoing manner....a very disciplined manner
This isn't true either. It'd be more accurate to say that the Catholic church has accreted more and more teachings onto the core of Christianity as the centuries have advanced, like barnacles on a ship's hull. Yes, the core is still there, somewhere underneath, but it's difficult to see sometimes. Protestants and Orthodox churches (and others, too) have that same core. They are no less legitimate than the RCC.
beginning with your last statement george
the second vatican council was a major housecleaning...there is a tendency in RCC to save and shelve everything...(with librarian monks blowing the dust off occasionally)
the effort has been to retrieve and to manifest what is essential in theology and worship
i can't see the church working better with the allowance of marriage in the priesthood...i can see for instance the incorporation of the eastern orthodox model which allows for marriage at the earliest stage in priestly formation
an anglican bishop spoke here a few years ago and gave witness to the large storehouse of now translated works of the early church fathers...works that used to be in the hands of latin and greek readers alone...most all of them catholics...most of them monks...anyway his claim was that this body of literature now accessible to all was key to the developing discussions in ecumenism...the tradition of church fathers was given artistic witness in statues and paintings throughout the 2000 yrs of catholic art...the traditions of athanasius and macarius and polycarp and theodoros...these held sway in the naming of churches and continual return to sources which has been a catholic preoccupation...the truth is that catholics in general were largely ignorant of the church fathers until very recently as well...there has been a large and long scholarly tradition but these efforts have only come to light of day in the past century for us as well
there's some confusion in the understanding of alms and indulgences
there's a greater emphasis now in all donations for whatever purpose go to the needs of the needy
they are no less legitimate than the RCC?????
yeah i'd have to take that one on
the notion of the unversality of chritianity requires some care...stemming from the mandate that the truth of it all would be offered to each succeeding generation...we can have arguments about how this was done effectively or not throughout history...but the dictum of thomas aquinas held true before he spoke it...in matters of necessity let us be in agreement in matters of nonessentials let us be charitable
while the all too human predilections for power and control are apparent in the history of the church...i think it safe to say that the underlying motivation has been for unity...that the message of the gospel can go from one point in the world to another and it can remain intact and vital and genuine...we can question how this was done at times...it wasn't always pretty i agree...yet the motivation was always and continues to be that the grace within the message and the meaning within the theology was always meant to have the widest possible interest and accessibility
god is bigger than the churches
but it seems to me we have some obligation by our faith to know what is essential and to offer this to the people gathered as the church wherever they are
i take great solace in knowing that the theological inquiries i have had were fully treated by men who dedicated their lives to preserving and illuminating the texts and the traditon of worship and study...the teaching resources of rome are extraordinary...i take delight in the fact that the servant of the servants of the poor the pope is also a gifted intellectual a pastor an impressive pianist and is proving himself to be a respectable diplomat...i can listen to him and know that what i am hearing is nurtured in the truth...the good of the tradition the good of scripture the good of people hashing it out for the kingdom
how it looks from the outside is not always the way things are on the inside
i admire your pointed and important criticism
george
i'm a poor apologist
just limping along in the faith really
thanks
j
oh and a thomistic retort
insofar as we believe that man is made in the image and likeness of god we believe that this making carries with it the immortality of god...thus the charitable judgment about the life of the soul no matter how bedraggled by the affairs of the world is that it is immortal...how any one individual appropriates that knowledge is a different matter...even lost souls live forever...however
i can't see the church working better with the allowance of marriage in the priesthood...i can see for instance the incorporation of the eastern orthodox model which allows for marriage at the earliest stage in priestly formation
I don't see the church working either better or worse given priestly marriage. That's pretty much my point. Some priests would no doubt be better unmarried, others better married. Catholic practice, of course, won't allow that.
an anglican bishop spoke here a few years ago and gave witness to the large storehouse of now translated works of the early church fathers...works that used to be in the hands of latin and greek readers alone...most all of them catholics...
Most all of them catholics, not Catholics. They all, of course, saw themselves as part of the universal Christian church. Their works (along with, for example, the gospels and Paul's letters) used to be mainly in the hands of the readers for several important reasons that no longer obtain: Most people couldn't read them, and it was very expensive to make copies when they had to be written out, by hand, using quill pens, on expensive parchment or other material. This wouldn't change until the 1500s, but it has changed.
most of them monks...
This is far from true. Most of the early church fathers from which we have writings were bishops, deacons, or presbyters, or something similar. Eremitic monasticism didn't really take off until after Anthony of Egypt (c. 250-356). Athanasius, whom you mention below, wrote a popular semibiography about Anthony that seems to have led to this popularity. However, cenobitic monasticism seems to have started under Pachomius, also in Egypt, in the early 300s. Note that these were Eastern movements at first. Basil of Caesarea especially encouraged this cenobitic type all over Asia Minor. These, by the way, were especially influenced by the teachings of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and as such, were truly Eastern. Western monasticism weren't really much of importance until Benedict and Gregory (pope of Rome) encouraged them around the year 500.
the traditions of athanasius and macarius and polycarp and theodoros
I'm not familiar with Macarius, whoever that is.
Athanasius is a really interesting person. He lived at a time when there was much arguing over the exact status of Christ and the Spirit with relation to the Father, in the aftermath of the council at Nicaea. Athanasius's side of the argument (popular in the west) was often accused of using the Nicene creed as cover for monarchian beliefs (i.e., that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct realities). The west, in turn, accused the east (led by such early church fathers as Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople) of using the creed to cover up their Arianism (i.e., the belief the Christ was somehow subordinate and of lesser status than God). Athanasius was sometimes bishop of Alexandria (when the west had the political upper hand), and sometimes not (when the east did).
Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna. All I really know of him is that he visited Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, around 155, where they discussed the celebration of Easter (presumably among other things). The Roman church apparently had a lot of believers recently from the east, and Rome and the east had different traditions on when to celebrate Easter, which I guess was causing some friction in Rome. They ended up, however, not coming to any agreement on this, each continuing to do their own thing.
I don't know who you mean by Theodoros, either, as variations on that name were extremely common.
Anyway, these seem strange examples to me to argue the RCC cause, as Polycarp specifically did not bow to Rome, but he and the bishop of Rome still remained on good terms and united in the universal church despite their differences; and Athanasius represented just one side of a very serious and drawn-out disagreement within the church, one which would in the long term result in the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split.
in matters of necessity let us be in agreement in matters of nonessentials let us be charitable
This is all very well to say, but with Rome insisting that certain beliefs (such as some Marian beliefs) are essential, and most other Christians doubting this, I don't see where this helps the situation. In any case, the RCC is quite overdo for being "charitable" along these lines.
while the all too human predilections for power and control are apparent in the history of the church...i think it safe to say that the underlying motivation has been for unity...
I disagree with this. There have been great lengths of times in the RCC when the underlying motivation has been power and control, plain and simple. I will quote one paragraph from the Wikipedia page for Pope Leo X (born Giovanni de Medici):
The year which marked the close of the Lateran council was also signalized by Leo's war against the duke of Urbino Francesco Maria I della Rovere. Pope Leo was proud of his family and had practised nepotism from the outset. His cousin Giulio, who subsequently became pope as Clement VII, he had made the most influential man in the curia, naming him archbishop of Florence, cardinal and vice-chancellor of the Holy See. Leo had intended his younger brother Giuliano and his nephew Lorenzo for brilliant secular careers. He had named them Roman patricians; the latter he had placed in charge of Florence; the former, for whom he planned to carve out a kingdom in central Italy of Parma, Piacenza, Ferrara and Urbino, he had taken with himself to Rome and married to Filiberta of Savoy. The death of Giuliano in March 1516, however, caused the pope to transfer his ambitions to Lorenzo. At the very time (December 1516) that peace between France, Spain, Venice and the Empire seemed to give some promise of a Christendom united against the Turks, Leo was preparing an enterprise as unscrupulous as any of the similar exploits of Cesare Borgia. He obtained 150,000 ducats towards the expenses of the expedition from Henry VIII of England, in return for which he entered the imperial league of Spain and England against France.
The pope at that time was no more or less than any other king. I don't think you can honestly claim that Leo X thought about Christian unity for more than five minutes in his entire life. So when you claim that it's "safe to say that the underlying motivation [within the Catholic church] has been for unity", I can only laugh. While that was certainly sometimes considered important, I don't even know if you could honestly claim it was usually a consideration, let alone the underlying motivation.
i take great solace in knowing that the theological inquiries i have had were fully treated by men who dedicated their lives to preserving and illuminating the texts and the traditon of worship and study...
This is truly one of the problems of the Catholic church. As an academic, I don't know that I've ever read more frightening words.
how it looks from the outside is not always the way things are on the inside
You can say that again. That is why it's important to be able to know what is going on on the inside. The recent Catholic push to openness is laudable, but is hardly sufficient.
insofar as we believe that man is made in the image and likeness of god we believe that this making carries with it the immortality of god...thus the charitable judgment about the life of the soul no matter how bedraggled by the affairs of the world is that it is immortal...how any one individual appropriates that knowledge is a different matter...even lost souls live forever...however
This may be the "charitable" judgment, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. The truth is that we simply don't know what happens to lost souls. Any claims that we do are, to put it bluntly, lies. And, as much as I admire Aquinas (and I honestly do), much of what he wrote is wishful thinking and just plain nonsense on stilts. Very tall stilts.
In any case, the RCC is quite overdo for being "charitable" along these lines.
And what does that matter? Let the dead bury the dead. If you're going to discount Catholicism because of its past, then Islam is a bastion of learning and Germany is evil?
I really enjoy George Grady's amazing precision. That's all I want to say. I just plain enjoy it.
He can follow a boundary line through the highest grass.
G. M. Palmer,
And what does that matter? Let the dead bury the dead. If you're going to discount Catholicism because of its past, then Islam is a bastion of learning and Germany is evil?
You have a point here. However, I don't discount Catholic arguments about theological issues because of its past. (If I discount them at all, it's because I think they're wrong.) I discount Catholic claims of special authority because of its past.
In any case, my specific comment to which you're replying here wasn't intended to reference the whole of Catholic history, but merely to point out that the Catholic church as it is today comes nowhere near to practicing the precept "in matters of nonessentials let us be charitable", since it insists that two millennia of Catholic accretions on the Christian core are "essential" to the faith; and since Thomas Aquinas died over 700 years ago, if they truly believe his precept, they are overdue in applying it.
my point of reference george pertaining to the present existence of texts of the early church fathers is that the knowledge of these texts was contained within the libraries of monasteries...i am not saying that all the early church fathers were monks...although most of them lived in some sort of monastic setting at least for awhile...until very recently...you state some interesting points...but i gotta go pray...maybe i'll return to this...kirby is having too much fun with all this
j
I'm much less depressed! Thanks, George!
I feel good all over reading your reasoning. It's like mine, only it's sharper, and better. It's like reading my thoughts if only I could think!
I feel like the Scarecrow in the Wiz.
And I like that JH is giving it all back. I love it! Finally, we are having a real conversation. Now, if only I could shut up!
But I can't. I feel... a post coming on.
jh,
my point of reference george pertaining to the present existence of texts of the early church fathers is that the knowledge of these texts was contained within the libraries of monasteries...
This is true, and for this we owe those Catholic monks a debt of gratitude. But that is all.
kirby is having too much fun with all this
Well, it's always good not to antagonize one's host too much.
it's always a thrill for a poet to frighten an academic
but i don't quite get what the fear would be about george...is it that the church has always insisted on educating and cultivating the best of human intellect for purposes of preserving what is valuable???....for keeping the arguments alive??!!
my only wish is that catholic preaching would improve...perhaps the real life triumph and tragedies
of growing a family and loving a wife would be a source for improvement...the insights have to be astounding at times....as they are in the long quiet hours in my cell working on the extent of intuition in the life of the mind...how far will the mind go in understanding???how far will the will go in intending what is good and beautiful..why the hell am i praying???
the wretched thing here is that more people do not avail themselves to the riches therein
even some of her most devoted servants remain ignorant of the best stuff
and what's more
all the best texts are avilable to you or anyone
you don't need a catholic library card to read 'em
i wonder if catholic academics enjoy more freedom of inquiry and expression than the folks in the secular universities....might be a good study!!??
my sense is that the racegenderbenderclassclash is high pitched even in our colleges
i play hooky
going to play my guitar
great bhantu banter
j
jh,
but i don't quite get what the fear would be about george...is it that the church has always insisted on educating and cultivating the best of human intellect for purposes of preserving what is valuable???....for keeping the arguments alive??!!
Ah, no, but that's not what you said earlier. You said:
i take great solace in knowing that the theological inquiries i have had were fully treated by men who dedicated their lives to preserving and illuminating the texts and the traditon of worship and study...
The implication of this is that, since your questions have been "fully treated" by the Catholic church, there is no need for you to worry about them--in fact, you "take solace" in that. They can just tell you the answers, and you don't need to examine the evidence, assumptions, or thinking behind the answers. They've been "fully treated", after all! By "men who dedicated their lives" to the task!
And I take issue with the statement "that the church has always insisted on educating and cultivating the best of human intellect for purposes of preserving what is valuable???....for keeping the arguments alive??!!" The Catholic church doesn't keep arguments alive. The Catholic church says, "we've decided that; that argument's over". When the Catholic church burned Jan Hus at the stake for not recanting, were they keeping arguments alive? When the Inquisition in Spain executed thousands of their fellow Christians over the course of 300 some years, were they keeping arguments alive? I think it's pretty clear that whatever reason the Catholic church had for copying and keeping these early records during those years, it wasn't to keep arguments alive.
i guess i would have to say george
that the solace is that i was able to locate for myself the best of early christian writing because other scholars had translated and interpreted the texts for me already...not without acknowledgement of the translators curse...eternal incompleteness...and that this gift has helped me to understand the doctrines of the church...and the process did encourage questioning and doubting...of this i can assure you
the good fruit of many a scholar allowed me to access information that i couldn't access on my own
being the basic lout and lush that i am
i can read just about anything in english even most of the original quotes...but research was never a higher calling for me...so in much the same way i feel an indebtedness to the translators of the kingjames and the jerusalem bibles and the RSV of course...and some of the great exegetes and commentators both catholic and non
...gerhard van rad held considerable sway in my mind for the better part of one year...( i did delve pretty deeply into biblical hebrew) - anyway that's my only point...and as far as the teaching authority of rome goes i know for a fact that i will never read and digest and ponder many of the texts that have come before the eyes of the present pope and most of his cardinals and the prelates in general (although i've met some surprisingly illiterate prelates)...and yes they have kept extraordinary arguments alive...i think of one joseph marechal sj who spent his whole philosophical life in dialectic with the thought of KANT...there are some things the roman church will not budge on...and that's OK by me...the sanctity of marriage...the sanctity of the person...the importance of the priesthood formed in the virtue of chastity...the persistent message of dignity and solemnity in the liturgy...but also festivity...birth control...abortion...the proper roles of man and woman ( i know i know the whole natural law thing is out dated)
there is a principle in moral theology which does not get much notice but it is central to understanding the moral teaching of the church...the autonomy of the informed conscience...which states that if after due consideration and deliberation a person discerns a moral path that is necessary to take in contrast to the doctrines of the church...by all means he/she must take that path...so...along with obedience (which in the larger sense means listening)...there is the adamant teaching of personal discretion in all matters
one of the most liberal archbishops in the 20th century is a benedictine and he once told me that he was always surprised that people in america thought that he and the present pope were enemies when in fact they always had meals and coffee together and told theological stories constantly from different points of view and had different opinions about everything from papal authority to catechism...but they were and are fast friends
there's a rotating door for leaders of churches from around the world who have the popes ear
it's unfortunate that you bring up Hus and the insane spaniards...it is helpful to note however that there was considerable dissent regarding the punishment of dissenters...and as you well know the stories are far more complicated than just bad guy vs good guy...some of the ardent dissenters gave their lives...some suffered through the madness and forgave the ecclesial thugs
when it comes to censuring there is an odd history...it is one way that the church at least attempts to put truth before the celebrity of the author...some great catholic theologians in the 20th century were silenced (pierre tielhard de chardin sj was one...and he was always seen to be nothing but faithful...o i suppose a little miffed at times...there's a great little book by annie dillard "for the time being" which traces the life of the paleantologist jesuit) ...some acknowledged it all in the light of the passion of christ...others pouted and railed...one YVES CONGAR was given the cardinals cap on his death bed - it is said that he merely stated...sorry, i've other plans
so yeah the MAGISTERIUM is alive and well and necessary
i wake in the morning and say
aye aye captain!!!
the onus upon the protestant world i think is to assess for themselves what was left behind and what has - out of necessity given the institutional fracture -become a watered down theology (and a bit dangerous in this regard) of course i speak of the more disconnected branches of protestantism contrasting with the mainline churches who seem to be grasping on to the old stuff and making it new rather astoundingly...and there is more and more liturgical agreement as well...cylces of readings the lectionary etc
you'd pretty much have to take thomas aquinas out of the picture completely for a change of mind on the issues that are (very recent) pressing forth in the protestant world...luther calvin zwinglly cranmer westley martin luther king jr....these voices have been duly noted...and still speak loudly to us...i know an irish monk who is busy as we type mining the best of calvin
q - how many catholics does it take to change a light bulb
a - what do you mean change???
pax saeculorum
j
jh,
that the solace is that i was able to locate for myself the best of early christian writing because other scholars had translated and interpreted the texts for me already...
This is fine. But I think it's important to keep in mind that most of these early writings were written as arguments for a specific point of view, and as such should not be taken as received truth, but rather merely as attempts for some sort of understanding. Using them to find historical insights into what the church found problematic and what people were interested in thinking about is useful. However, using them to frame arguments about theological truth is far less useful. Really, there isn't very much we know for certain, and it is possible to construct many different theological wholes which are all perfectly consistent with what has been revealed to us. And there is no objective basis to choose between them. It becomes arguing over angels dancing on pinheads. It is possible to build larger and larger edifices, incorporating more and more assumptions that lead to more and more conclusions, and then forget that the assumptions we made are just that: assumptions. It's also possible for one person to make an assumption and for later generations to consider it received truth. I think the early church documents are especially important because they reveal that an awful lot of the "received truth" that the modern church has arose in just such a fashion.
As one example, there's Ambrose, bishop of Milan in the latter half of the fourth century. He is considered one of the most important thinkers in church history (he's one of the so-called "doctors of the church"). We have a lot of his writings, and his influence went a long way, but I just want to look at one of his arguments.
Ambrose argued for the "perpetual virginity" of Mary. You can read his arguments elsewhere if you like, but I'll just point out that they are arguments about an historical fact. Early Mary and Joseph had sexual relations, or they did not. Arguing about what God must have or could not have done is a fools' game to me. We either know or we don't, and in this case, we simply don't.
That said, Ambrose was not an unbiased thinker. He was a strong proponent of the ascetic lifestyle. He saw virginity not as merely an alternative to marriage that some would find special grace in; but rather that it was objectively superior to marriage. That true Christians would be better to strive for it. This colored his thinking on everything else. And I would say that it certainly is not something we know. (Yes, I know what Paul said, too.) So to base theological arguments on it is shaky, at best.
there is a principle in moral theology which does not get much notice but it is central to understanding the moral teaching of the church...the autonomy of the informed conscience...which states that if after due consideration and deliberation a person discerns a moral path that is necessary to take in contrast to the doctrines of the church...by all means he/she must take that path...so...along with obedience (which in the larger sense means listening)...there is the adamant teaching of personal discretion in all matters
Yes, but the Catholic church doesn't actually do this. Again, I have examined my conscience, I have listened to the arguments, and I have decided that I cannot agree with much of what the Catholic church teaches. The Catholic church has then decreed that I cannot be a part of their church (yes, I can attend services if I like--they won't kick me out--but it's only as an outsider), though they dare call themselves by the name "Catholic". If it were up to the Catholic church, I could never commune again the rest of my life, something that Christ explicitly said he wanted to be done ("Do this, in remembrance of me"). My wife, on the other hand, has been instructed by the Catholic church, that she cannot commune in mine. So the Catholic church has taken upon itself the authority to proclaim that my wife and I can never commune together again. The Catholic church has built a wall between our spiritual lives, in the name of obedience to Catholic authority. So, forgive me, but this is somewhat personal. So, sorry, but I don't believe that, in practice, the Catholic church gives two figs about "the autonomy of the informed conscience".
it's unfortunate that you bring up Hus and the insane spaniards...it is helpful to note however that there was considerable dissent regarding the punishment of dissenters...and as you well know the stories are far more complicated than just bad guy vs good guy...
What's really unfortunate is that the Catholic church acted in such a way (in the name of God, no less!) that it is possible to bring up Jan Hus and the Inquisition. But I think it is important to not forget these things. The argument for Catholic authority (and therefore the argument for obedience to Catholic authority) is based on history, so it is necessary to look at that history. And the problem the Catholic church has in relation to things such as individual conscience, just war, opposition to capital punishment, etc., is that it simply has no credibility in those areas. When the Catholic church had worldly political power, it, over and over again, did precisely the things that it now lectures other powers that they shouldn't do. It still needs to answer for this. And merely arguing about what is right isn't sufficient. Those arguments can be (and might well be) perfectly on the side the Catholic church professes, but the Catholic church needs to admit that not only did it do things it shouldn't have done, but it did it under claimed authority it doesn't have. We've seen what the Catholic church does with power, and it will have to live with that fact.
so yeah the MAGISTERIUM is alive and well and necessary
What reason is there to believe the magisterium is necessary? All it does is pretend to be able to answer questions it can't really answer.
the onus upon the protestant world i think is to assess for themselves what was left behind and what has - out of necessity given the institutional fracture -become a watered down theology
Yes, the Protestant world needs to examine its own conscience, just as the Catholic world does. Everybody does. But I think there is a happy medium between watering down theology, as you put it, and calcifying theology based on magisterial pronouncements and papal bulls. How about we actually look at what we really know, and try to live our lives to the glory of God the best we can? And of the many churches I've looked at over my life, I think the Lutheran church does the best at walking the line between "anything goes" (your watered down Protestants) and "we've got a rule for everything" (the Catholic church).
And as for "these voices have been duly noted...and still speak loudly to us...", I believe what I see. When the Catholic church starts admitting that their claims of authority are overstated, and that other churches have as much legitimacy as they do, then there's hope for Christian unity. Until then...
music may be but a symptom for an underlying cultural phenomenon but there is at least plenty of agreement among liturgical people that the hymns of bach and wesley and the anglican hymnal in particular present for us riches of sound that we use constantly today
george there are places which allow for intercommunion you just have to find them...my position which may deviate from the norm some...is that when i receive communion i receive the whole ball of wax so to speak...the communion i receive today is one and the same as the communion shared in rome today and in the phillipines...and i share it with people who acknowledge the same...this is not the case with all christians...the witness is for authentic celebration...always done less than perfect of course...thus for me to receive the body of christ in my hands is also to receive the full witness of the church through history and in its present malformation if you will
i was once present for sunday worship at the national cathedral in DC and a woman i guess a bishop was holding forth at the altar and i wrestled at communion time with going forth and i realized deep within that her message was not the message for me and theologically and religiously this was not the place for me...so i sat and prayed and looked at the windows...had a distinct feeling of being at a gala ball with mud all over my suit... a monk whom i was with stood to walk to communion turned to me and said...it doesn't make any difference...here it's only a wafer
were you to visit st johns abbey you would be more than welcome at the altar of communion...if there is desire in you to receive communion that in itself is communion
the magisterium is necessary for those who wish to follow in the path of catholic christianity...and the teaching is very practical for me and for all who follow the advice...like it or fight it the magisterium is a locus of unity...at least for catholics
your point about ambrose the teacher of augustine and the writer of melodies and yes a doctor to us still is a very good one
thomas wrestled with the same notion in regard to the immaculate conception...yet he comes down on the side of "we cannot know" he even says it is unessential for salvation but then thinks further and says "if the church teaches thus i will believe" ... much of the sentiment is lost on us in these days of conception and birth manipulation...and even today amongst catholic theologians there is a very strong opinion which holds that mary and joseph could well have enjoyed natural marital relations...without forsaking the established purity of the woman mary...a married mother with children is no less given to the kind of holiness we profess...somewhere there is a sort of cultural neurosis about virginity and purity (read: mary douglas' book purity and danger)...and yes it has been cultivated to some extent but not particularly by any means within the church...within christianity in general..what mary the mother of god models for me is something closer to the eastern orthodox witness THEOTOKOS...i think it far less important to plumb the mystery of mary than to pray to her for help
the authority stated by the church is the voice of protection of the teaching and practice handed down since peter and paul...since abraham in a true sense...in that regard it is something to which everyone should gain access...rather than dismiss the authority perhaps it would be interesting to really see and hear what the authority is saying and why
i really enjoy reading and thinking about your words george
keep the faith
however you conceive it
that's the thing
j
i guess the answer about the misuse of power in the church is embedded in history and history is bunk but at times i know it useful too...at the time of the inquisition mechanisms were in place to divorce the governance of the church completely from secular government...a motion that was set in place by the MAGNA CARTA...luther did not invent the concept..yet the church was in bed with some atrocious characters and begat some atrocious characters and still has in it some atrocious characters..let's pray for one another
st joan of arc
please forgive us
jh,
there are places which allow for intercommunion you just have to find them...
Unfortunately, that is not an option in my area. When I attended RCIA at the local Catholic parish here, at one point it became clear to me that I would be unable to make the necessary vows to move forward, as to do so I would have to lie. When I had a discussion with the priest about this, he made a point of saying that I would never be permitted to commune there alongside my wife unless I changed my beliefs. So be it, I suppose. But I cannot and will not lie in the presence of any church and God about my beliefs.
I think we have somewhat similar beliefs about communion. When that monk told you "here it's only a wafer", undoubtedly that was true for him. If I had been there and had communed, it would not have been true for me. The Catholic and Orthodox churches have historically argued about precisely when Jesus enters the bread and wine. I suspect they're both wrong, since I don't think it's really about the bread or the wine. I think Jesus and the Spirit enter me when I commune, and enter my fellow Christians when they commune, and that's what matters.
At one point I was really angry with the Catholic church for using communion as a political tool to enforce obedience to its will. Now I mostly feel sad about it. I can't really forgive them for it, though, at least not until they stop. Communion should be a force for unity, and they use it as a tool for division.
like it or fight it the magisterium is a locus of unity...at least for catholics
Perhaps, but in turn it is a locus of disunity for Christianity as a whole. I question if that is worth it.
thomas wrestled with the same notion in regard to the immaculate conception...yet he comes down on the side of "we cannot know" he even says it is unessential for salvation but then thinks further and says "if the church teaches thus i will believe"
Yes, one of Thomas's mistakes. How can someone believe something they know to have no foundation? Certainly, they can espouse it, but believe? And what is the purpose of falsified belief? That's not unity, but merely a mirage.
the authority stated by the church is the voice of protection of the teaching and practice handed down since peter and paul...since abraham in a true sense...
But they don't protect that teaching and practice! They protect centuries upon centuries of additions and emendations that Paul and Peter might well have been appalled with! Of course the Catholic church has the authority to protect Christian teaching and practice, but so do all other Christians, and to the same extent. Much of the opposition to Catholic teaching and practice is for that precise reason.
i guess the answer about the misuse of power in the church is embedded in history and history is bunk but at times i know it useful too...
Heh, history sure isn't bunk, no matter what Henry Ford thought.
at the time of the inquisition mechanisms were in place to divorce the governance of the church completely from secular government...a motion that was set in place by the MAGNA CARTA...luther did not invent the concept..
Well, whatever mechanisms were in place at the time of the Inquisition must not have been very effective. And Luther certainly didn't invent the concept; I don't know that he even agreed with it. Anyway, it's definitely older than the Magna Carta (which I have never understood to be about that sort of thing). After Constantine, the church and empire (whether Roman or Byzantine) were widely understood to operate in different spheres. Certainly the emperor could (and often did) exert substantial pressure, but it was mostly respected. Medieval and Renaissance Europe was the low point for that sort of thing.
points well taken george
it's late
i just would like to chime in with a historical note
beginning with pope gregory the great in the 6th century the movement of culture stemming from rome was almost indistinguishable secular officials from ecclesial officials...where the merchants went so went the church...where the church went so went the armies...where the money went so went the church...simon schama (who has redeemed for me the telling of history from the hills of bunk) argues that the real cultural severence in europe did not occur until WW II...we've yet to adjust to the sensibility of independant governance...sometimes our federal officials start to look eerily like power mad priests of the new order
jh,
Well, Gregory's papacy was at the time when the empire was forced out of Italy. I think that the papacy basically filled the subsequent power vacuum. But when Christianity was the imperial state religion, the emperor and the bishops were understood to hold power in different realms for the most part (although each could influence the other). With the emperor gone in the west, things changed, but I think it was because the papacy took over the powers that were previously the emperor's. But it's been a while since I studied this time period, so I may be misremembering.
yes the popes took on secular power in the development of the west out of the dark ages...there was the investiture controversy...when 15th century??...but yes it sort of became that principalities were governed by families who had family members as church officials living in castles on the province...starting religious communities etc...the popes had way too much power for awhile... i agree...yet the european model of church state bedwrangling has still some vestiges in places in europe...very understated but still there
Post a Comment