In medieval history we always have to read about medieval piety which my Mennonite Professor just sums up as 'superstition' (though somehow the bible is magic without it being superstitious).
Anyway, I guess I have become one of those nameless masses of Catholics going through the ages with their superstition, but I have to say I kind of am glad.
For a long time reading my bible was the only spiritually edifying experience I had. Then it became taking communion, then confession, but finally it has become my Rosary (which I find myself praying in lecture and taking everywhere), and reading Newman and Ratzinger. I'm going through Cardinal Newman's "Apologia Pro Vita Sua" and I will admit, he isn't the brightest theologian, but it is a good story as it were, and I find his sermons admirable, and his prose excellent.
Ratzinger is just the most thoroughly Christian man I think I've ever read about. I remember in grade ten laughing at our Catholic teacher in the Mennonite High School I went to because she was crying over the news of the death of the pope. I said "but isn't he the Anti-Christ?" (honestly I'm not making this up) and I received the strict glares of the other Anabaptists, I guess we weren't allowed to say what our theology taught in public.
Anyway Ratzinger - great theologian, very pious man, and not really a modernist or a traditionalist, just a man with huge biblical and patristic knowledge firmly in the Augustinian tradition (a nice compliment to the Neo-Thomists). So Papa Benny and my Rosary and soon to be St. John Henry Newman are swiftly becoming my popular piety (in addition to my Bible reading and everlasting debates with the Reformed).
Showing posts with label Pope Benedict XVI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pope Benedict XVI. Show all posts
Friday, October 23, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Orthodox Catholic Theologians: Do They Exist?
-Karl Rahner (SJ) has been called a post-modern modalist.
-Hans Urs Von Balthasar (SJ) has been accused of teaching Penal Substitution and universalism.
-Henri de Lubac (SJ) was forbidden to teach or publish theology for 9 years by the Jesuits because of a controversial work.
-Yves Congar (OP) was removed from teaching or publishing for a while because of his ecumenism and promotion of openness to some Protestant ideas.
All of those men were given the chance to become Cardinals (the 2nd highest office in Catholicism) and some of them took it. They have been called some of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians in the 20th century. And yet at the same time they are charged with heresy.
At first this scared and troubled me and I didn't want to read them. But then I realized this is ridiculous, these men are heroes of the faith and people are mindlessly slandering them, even Protestants read them for their brilliance (the Anglicans especially).
There are a few Orthodox Catholic theologians who as far as I've heard are completely legit, but probably more boring:
Pope Benedict XVI (obviously - he was the head of our Inquisit-I mean congregation of faith, and our Pope)
Etienne Gilson
Jacques Maritain
Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft are both questioned greatly about their orthodoxy, but probably because they explain things from a Protestant framework (and possibly because Kreeft *kind of* teaches Protestant Soteriology a bit...sometimes)
What I really want to understand is Catholic soteriology, but the problem seems to be that as soon as a Catholic theologian claims something significant happened in the crucifixion he's accused of penal substitution and Protestantism.
-Hans Urs Von Balthasar (SJ) has been accused of teaching Penal Substitution and universalism.
-Henri de Lubac (SJ) was forbidden to teach or publish theology for 9 years by the Jesuits because of a controversial work.
-Yves Congar (OP) was removed from teaching or publishing for a while because of his ecumenism and promotion of openness to some Protestant ideas.
All of those men were given the chance to become Cardinals (the 2nd highest office in Catholicism) and some of them took it. They have been called some of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians in the 20th century. And yet at the same time they are charged with heresy.
At first this scared and troubled me and I didn't want to read them. But then I realized this is ridiculous, these men are heroes of the faith and people are mindlessly slandering them, even Protestants read them for their brilliance (the Anglicans especially).
There are a few Orthodox Catholic theologians who as far as I've heard are completely legit, but probably more boring:
Pope Benedict XVI (obviously - he was the head of our Inquisit-I mean congregation of faith, and our Pope)
Etienne Gilson
Jacques Maritain
Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft are both questioned greatly about their orthodoxy, but probably because they explain things from a Protestant framework (and possibly because Kreeft *kind of* teaches Protestant Soteriology a bit...sometimes)
What I really want to understand is Catholic soteriology, but the problem seems to be that as soon as a Catholic theologian claims something significant happened in the crucifixion he's accused of penal substitution and Protestantism.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
For The Love Of God
"I have loved you, says the Lord.
But you say, ‘How have you loved us?’" - Malachi 1:2 (NRSV)
Ravi Zacharias preached on this passage the other day, it breaks your heart to think that this is how we humans react to God. God says he loves us an we question "how have you loved us".
A Baptist preacher once told me that we can't love anyone at all unless we see the love Christ has poured on us and allow it to overflow. Our love for God, ourselves, and our neighbour has to come from God, and only then will we be able to love.
I was listening to an exposition of the same preacher on "Splagnidzomai" which he said was the Greek word for compassion. It was the feeling of a churning of the bowels. Jesus is said to have looked at the crowds and have "splagnidzomai". When we understand the compassion and love Christ has for us, it changes our hearts.
This is pretty basic Christianity, but I'm always amazed at how easily I forget it, and how transformative it is. A friend was smoking weed near me once and laughing at my "morality", and he said "Do you think God really cares?". I pointed to the golden crucifix he was wearing and said "he seemed to care enough to die for it (his sin)". Suddenly he was quiet.
St. John of the Cross says that whenever we have difficulty in life, we should look at the cross and be silent. I think that's true, but we should remember the cross for an important reason. Not just asceticism or redemptive suffering, but understand that we were bought at a price. That Jesus freely accepted the cross, he embraced it, because of his love for us. Where Protestantism always emphasized faith, I've found it an interesting change to see how much Catholicism always emphasizes love.
Pope Benedict writes beautifully on the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the mass arguing that the Cross while a place of punishment, should first and foremost be seen as a place of love:
"Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end." - John 13:1 (NRSV)
I'm planning on reading the rest of Deus est Caritas, (God is Love) Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical.
But you say, ‘How have you loved us?’" - Malachi 1:2 (NRSV)
Ravi Zacharias preached on this passage the other day, it breaks your heart to think that this is how we humans react to God. God says he loves us an we question "how have you loved us".
A Baptist preacher once told me that we can't love anyone at all unless we see the love Christ has poured on us and allow it to overflow. Our love for God, ourselves, and our neighbour has to come from God, and only then will we be able to love.
I was listening to an exposition of the same preacher on "Splagnidzomai" which he said was the Greek word for compassion. It was the feeling of a churning of the bowels. Jesus is said to have looked at the crowds and have "splagnidzomai". When we understand the compassion and love Christ has for us, it changes our hearts.
This is pretty basic Christianity, but I'm always amazed at how easily I forget it, and how transformative it is. A friend was smoking weed near me once and laughing at my "morality", and he said "Do you think God really cares?". I pointed to the golden crucifix he was wearing and said "he seemed to care enough to die for it (his sin)". Suddenly he was quiet.
St. John of the Cross says that whenever we have difficulty in life, we should look at the cross and be silent. I think that's true, but we should remember the cross for an important reason. Not just asceticism or redemptive suffering, but understand that we were bought at a price. That Jesus freely accepted the cross, he embraced it, because of his love for us. Where Protestantism always emphasized faith, I've found it an interesting change to see how much Catholicism always emphasizes love.
Pope Benedict writes beautifully on the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the mass arguing that the Cross while a place of punishment, should first and foremost be seen as a place of love:
"Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end." - John 13:1 (NRSV)
I'm planning on reading the rest of Deus est Caritas, (God is Love) Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Theological Idiot
I realize as I try to read through Aquinas on concupiscence, nature and grace, etc I am totally idiotic. All the Reformed people post mocking Protestant converts to Catholicism like me who read similar "fools" like Steve Ray and Dave Armstrong, etc.
My Aristotelian Moral Philosophy class in University has given me a bit of mileage in understanding Aquinas, but it as all so systematic and complex that I doubt I will ever fully have a systematic Catholic theology. My anti-systematic theology Mennonite ancestors might be proud of that. But I guess that's ok.
"We are fools for Christ's sake" (KJV) Saint Paul says in 1 Cor 4:10. I have an icon of St. Francis of Assisi that my friend Lance gave me, and an "action figure" or him my mom bought for me in Assisi when they went to Italy. I have it as a little shrine in my bathroom with a candle and matches which I have to hide when Protestant company comes to visit. I never really liked St. Francis as much as others I knew because he seemed so theologically lacking, but now as I realize I too am a fool, I feel more akin to the saint.
And as much as I think St. Thomas Aquinas and the Thomistic tradition is extremely brilliant, I tend to like Pope Benedict's patristic and biblical Augustinian approach. I think it's because I know the bible the best out of all these sources which I seem to barely know at all. I also like reading people who are in touch with the realities of life. Aristotle, Plato and Aquinas are brilliant men, but I always feel like they lacked the normalcy and everyday reality of ministers and priests.
I love reading Chesterton because he's a man with no formal education but is a genius as well. He had such common sense and wit that I find his defenses of Catholicism, while maybe overly simplistic, to be very effective.
My Aristotelian Moral Philosophy class in University has given me a bit of mileage in understanding Aquinas, but it as all so systematic and complex that I doubt I will ever fully have a systematic Catholic theology. My anti-systematic theology Mennonite ancestors might be proud of that. But I guess that's ok.
"We are fools for Christ's sake" (KJV) Saint Paul says in 1 Cor 4:10. I have an icon of St. Francis of Assisi that my friend Lance gave me, and an "action figure" or him my mom bought for me in Assisi when they went to Italy. I have it as a little shrine in my bathroom with a candle and matches which I have to hide when Protestant company comes to visit. I never really liked St. Francis as much as others I knew because he seemed so theologically lacking, but now as I realize I too am a fool, I feel more akin to the saint.
And as much as I think St. Thomas Aquinas and the Thomistic tradition is extremely brilliant, I tend to like Pope Benedict's patristic and biblical Augustinian approach. I think it's because I know the bible the best out of all these sources which I seem to barely know at all. I also like reading people who are in touch with the realities of life. Aristotle, Plato and Aquinas are brilliant men, but I always feel like they lacked the normalcy and everyday reality of ministers and priests.
I love reading Chesterton because he's a man with no formal education but is a genius as well. He had such common sense and wit that I find his defenses of Catholicism, while maybe overly simplistic, to be very effective.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The Joys of Catholicism (1)- The Unity Of The See Of Peter
Today I was reading Pope Benedict XVI's theology in a book I bought which holds a collection of his writing. He's a theological genius in my opinion, the smartest man I've ever read, and the most biblical Roman Catholic theologian I've ever read. He is totally a man of resourcement theology (a return to biblical and patristic sources for theology - rather than Neo-Scholasticism). Today as I sat in the Cathedral at Mass I realized, I'm in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, Papa Benny 16. We're one body, it's as if we were sharing in communion together, along with all the Roman saints in Heaven, St. Thomas More, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. I have had temptations to Anglo-Catholicism recently again (luckily Anglicanism has continued to kill itself, if there are any anglo-Catholics left), but as I thought about it, I enjoy the unity and doctrinal clarity of "romanism".
My self-hating Evangelical friends talk about East Orthodoxy as if it were the Celestial City, personally I'd become Missouri-Synod Lutheran before crossing the Bosphorus. Aside from the racism of Orthodoxy, there's the whole mess of jurisdiction, and the controversy of the Antiochan Orthodox Church in America right now: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090713/NEWS16/907130324
We had priests rape children, but no bishops who got drunk in casinos and grabbed womens...well just read about it. That was a bit of a red-herring and an unfair shot at the Greeks. We`re all sinful. Anyway, I was just reminded of how much I enjoy the unity that comes from the Monarchical Rule of the Papacy, for all the evil it can do when we have a bad pope, it makes times sweet when we have an awesome Pope like Benny (this is true of all Monarchy really).
God be with the Successor of Peter, the Servant of the Servants of God, Papa Benny 16. Augustinian, German, and Cat-lover. Who would`ve thought that a former Nazi and head of the Inquisition (Congregation of Faith) would make such a lovable grandpa figure Pope.
I have grown to hate Roman Triumphalism, and have tried to avoid it in this blog (though failed on MANY occasions), but I found this Chesterton quote expresses my affinity for my Roman Catholicism well:
So far as a man may be proud of a religion rooted in humility, I am very proud of my religion; I am especially proud of those parts of it that are most commonly called superstition. I am proud of being fettered by antiquated dogmas and enslaved by dead creeds (as my journalistic friends repeat with so much pertinacity), for I know very well that it is the heretical creeds that are dead, and that it is only the reasonable dogma that lives long enough to be called antiquated. - G. K. Chesterton
Friday, March 20, 2009
Rant on Karl Rahner, Modern Theology, and Vatican II
Every week I learn more and more about the utterly UN-monolithic nature of Catholic thought. I used to think that every Catholic was forced to believe the exact same thing and that each doctrine was clearly defined. While this is true in some areas, like the Eucharist (you can't budge an inch from Aquinas), there are many areas which are open to individual interpretation or at least acceptance of various different theological theories within the Church (ex. atonement models, creation v. evolution, etc). I've seen alot of very different kinds of Roman Catholics and different kinds of Churches, it's interesting to see how different the mass can be in different places now that there is more freedom post-Vatican II.
At the time of my conversion and ever since I've been reading what I call "The Polemicists" (Church Fathers, Reformation, and Counter-Reformation, and people like Chesterton or Neo-Catholic converts). But personally I feel like this kind of triumphalistic fundamentalism and scholasticism seems dry and removed from the modern world. The phrase "modern world" around most Catholics is like the phrase "works" or "merit" around most Protestants, it is horrifying, surrounded by heresy, and the opposite of everything that is good and holy.
At the time of my conversion and ever since I've been reading what I call "The Polemicists" (Church Fathers, Reformation, and Counter-Reformation, and people like Chesterton or Neo-Catholic converts). But personally I feel like this kind of triumphalistic fundamentalism and scholasticism seems dry and removed from the modern world. The phrase "modern world" around most Catholics is like the phrase "works" or "merit" around most Protestants, it is horrifying, surrounded by heresy, and the opposite of everything that is good and holy.
But I and my brother in Christ Lance, who is one of my favourite people alive, have the best conversations on theology because he's studying Modern Theology (Barth, Bonhoeffer, Multmann, etc) and I am so refreshed to hear someone talking about God in language and concepts that are in any way accessible.
It's in these conversations that my thirst for more theology grows, I want to read Hans Urs Von Balthusar, Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, and Romano Guardini. People who have found an orthodox way to bring Catholic tradition into the 20th century (even though it's the 21st, 100 years is close enough). I like what Karl Rahner said in an interview I read tonight:
It's in these conversations that my thirst for more theology grows, I want to read Hans Urs Von Balthusar, Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, and Romano Guardini. People who have found an orthodox way to bring Catholic tradition into the 20th century (even though it's the 21st, 100 years is close enough). I like what Karl Rahner said in an interview I read tonight:
"we must be receptive to modern philosophy without considering it absurd or something to be opposed and criticized. What is needed is a trusting colloquium between traditional scholastic philosophy and modern philosophy. This is necessary if, on the one hand, we are to be of our time… On the other hand, we do not want to lose the true riches of tradition"-Rahner
One thing I liked about Protestantism was that even if we disagreed on doctrines, we at least all new that one of the keys to evangelism was describing the timeless truths of the gospel in modern language that people understand and using modern concepts that people can connect to. Catholicism after Vatican II-like American Politics after Nixon- has become increasingly polarized. Some are fans of Vatican II ("liberals") and want a progression in the direction it was heading, others want to forget about Vatican II (and the Holocaust) ("Traditionalists"). I feel like this categorization is unfair, because no matter what the Traditionalists tell you, the vast majority of both parties accept the general premise that what the Church says at the end of the day is final, to change the French Revolutionary slogan, we all believe 'vox ecclesiam est vox dei' the voice of the Church is the voice of God, so the dissidents - if we can call them that - are much fewer than in a group like the Anglican Communion. But let it be noted: I have a very limited understanding of Vatican II - I've read much of it, and heard people talk about it, but I don't stand in a place to judge it well or with certainty.
But I guess I'm no Traditionalist, I don't think there's anything holy about latin or making people feel bad about themselves. I find Traditionalism like "Cage Calvinism" (see Jared's blog: http://deadtheologians.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-evangelicals-dont-understand-or.html). Traditionalists are the John MacArthur's of Rome, constantly venerating the oldest and more inapplicable theologies and practices, greatest marian devotions, and in the end you find yourself wearing a scapular around your leg bleeding in penance, thinking that your pain makes God love you more than others, and shooting Robert Langdon as he solves the DaVinci code. It's just a mess, that's why I try to stay in what I call "moderate" Catholicism, just a general acceptance of what Vatican II taught and a desire for a living faith for the common Catholic - a sort of Roman Methodism if you will. I believe the miracles, I believe the bible, I believe in the Magesterium. But I think Jaroslav Pelikan had a beautiful maxim on this subject:
"Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living"- Pelikan
Jared (like Luther in his response to Trent) was criticizing the inaccesibility of Catholic theology (in particular Justification) and Scholastic definitions (I think he was at least). While I defended the Church, at the same time I agree with him a bit, we need a basic understanding of an essential doctrine like justification. The beauty of sola fide is that it's simple, people get it, and no matter how confused Protestantism is on some areas (millenial theology, ecclesiology, etc) it at least understands it's own view of justification. The Pope (Benedict XVI) in a post the other day, explained Catholic justification simply as 'justification by love alone'. Whether you agree with that theology or not, you have to admit that it's simple. If every Catholic in the world could answer to the question "Brother what must I do to be saved" - "love the Lord your God" (the greatest commandment) at least we'd have an agreement and a simple understandable concept.
As it is if someone asks me "What must I do to be saved" I have to respond, "Well... first of all, have faith in Christ, then get baptized, then join the Church and repent of your sins and recieve absolution for grave sin in the sacrament of reconciliation (penance), and then recieve the body and blood of our Lord, and do works of charity which manifest the work of the Holy Spirit in your life, and then repeat these steps" - That's probably the orthodox Catholic theology of salvation it's the sacramental redemption according to St. Thomas Aquinas. But if you just get someone to love Jesus and join in the life of his body (the Church and Eucharist), maybe it will work just as well? I don't know.
This is the kind of theology I like, and I have great hope I will discover more of it as I read these quotes from Rahner:
"while I detest dogmatic positivism, I am a great lover of speculative theology." That is, a theology "that seeks a simple internal principle and through it sees the unity of all dogmatic thought."-Rahner
"What Christ gives us is quite explicit if his own words are interpreted according to their Aramaic meaning. The expression 'This is my Body' means this is myself."-Rahner
I love Rahner's view (that I read about on wikipedia - I'm not that smart, I just steal stuff from others) that we should understand God as revealing and giving himself to us through the Eucharist and through his grace -which is an extension of himself, so that we are slowly 'absorbed' (if the word is correct) into his very being. As we enter the body of Christ (Church) and receive the body of Christ (Eucharist) we are partaking and entering into the divine life which will be fully consumated in the beatific vision.
The final quote I saw (on a site with a list of his quotes - again I don't read alot of theology right now on my own, I just steal from others) that I liked was this:
"emptiness is only a disguise for an intimacy of God's, that God's silence, the eerie stillness, is filled by the Word without words, by Him who is above all names, by Him who is all in all. And his silence is telling us that He is here." - Karl Rahner
I love quotes like that so much, some people I think just think that people like me don't actually understand them, we just think they sound deep and pretend that they're very significant. But I honestly feel it's a beautiful thought, it explains God practically, sometimes he does seem far away, but maybe he is just like a friend who sits next to you in silence so long, sometimes you forget they are there.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Pope Benedict XVI on Justification
Pope Benedict XVI's views on justification and St. Paul: http://www.zenit.org/article-24302?l=english and his views on Martin Luther's sola fide - which he claims is correct if it is a faith not opposed to charity/love http://www.zenit.org/article-24309?l=english (sadly Luther when questioned on this point did indeed say it was a faith without charity, not the traditional Catholic formulation of amor fides)
Some quotes I liked from it were:
"To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary"
"That is why Luther's expression "sola fide" is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14)."
"Paul knows that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love... It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What I ask is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you feed me when I was hungry, clothe me when I was naked? So justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel, we can say: love alone, charity alone. However, there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St. Paul. It is the same vision, the one according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the realization of communion with Christ. Thus, being united to him we are just, and in no other way."
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Cross of Christ quote by Pope Benedict XVI
"A Jesus who agrees with everyone and everything, a Jesus without his holy anger, without the hardness of truth and genuine love, is not the real Jesus as he is depicted in the Scriptures, but a pitiable caricature. A concept of "Gospel" that fails to convey the reality of God's anger has nothing to do with the Gospel of the Bible. True forgiveness is something quite different than weak indulgence. Forgiveness is demanding and requires both parties, the one who forgives and the one who is forgiven, to do so with all their minds and hearts. A Jesus who sanctions everything is a Jesus without the Cross, for such a Jesus would not need the torment of the Cross to save mankind. As a matter of fact, the Cross is being increasingly banished from theology and reinterpreted as just a vexatious mischance or a purely political event. The Cross as reconciliation, as a means of forgiving and saving, is incompatible with with a certain modern mode of thought. Only when the relationship between truth and love is rightly comprehended can the Cross be comprehensible in its true theological depth. Forgiveness has to do with the truth. That is why it requires the Son's Cross and our conversion. Forgiveness is, in fact, the restoration of truth, the renewal of being, and the vanquishment of the lies that lurk in every sin; sin is by nature a departure from the truth of one's own nature and, by consequence, from the truth of the Creator God." -Pope Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger
I really like that. Go Benny 16! 'zing' those theological modern 'rat's out of the church.
I really like that. Go Benny 16! 'zing' those theological modern 'rat's out of the church.
Friday, March 6, 2009
The Church According to Nicea, why St. Edmund Campion died
On a bit of a mix of personal and theological I thought I'd just write a few things down on the unity, catholicity, and apostolicity of the Church as well as the development of doctrine.
I still remember reading Dominus Iesus or whatever Benny 16 put out as his encyclical that non-Catholic churches were merely "ecclesial communities" and being horrified. At the time I thought "Catholics aren't even Christians and they're telling us we aren't!?" ... I guess I didn't realize that Catholics probably thought they were Christians, but that would've saved me some confusion.
It was that document and the Catholic-Protestant Debate which I visited around that time which led me to what is (in my opinion) one of the most important points in Church History. As I looked for which Church I wanted to join I still had my unbiblical concept of the invisible church but then I read these words in the Nicene Creed, which J.N.D. Kelly, and Philip Schaff said was considered early on to be an infallible pronouncement in the eyes of the primitive Church (the Nicene Creed that is).
"We/I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" . The next line about baptism scared me as well. I knew there were only 3 churches applying for that job description and so I began studying Anglicanism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism. While I still like all 3 of those, I've chosen the last because I believe it meets those standards best.
While reading the story of St. Edmund Campion the other day it reminded me of this phrase. I'm still looking for a confirmation saint and while Augustine and Aquinas have been the steady tie, 2 others have come up recently. St Edmund Campion and St. Thomas More. I want one of them because they lived in what I call "the era of complicated Christianity" (or after the Reformation). It was an utter mess, and I want to be able to identify with someone who wasn't just a Western Christian but was specifically faithful to Catholicism and was killed for his strength of conviction.
I'm really thinking it's going to be one of the English martyrs who died for the primacy of the Holy See that ends up being my patron saint. I LOVE what St. Edmund Campion said at his trial where he defended himself vehemently against all the charges of those English martyrs: His beautiful words:
That almost gives me goosebumps. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered, which is really horrific, if you don't know what that entails, read about it on wikipedia. I think about St. Edmund and St. Thomas More and how they died for that phrase, that jewel of dogmas of Ancient Christendom "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church".
St. Edmund Campion pray for us!
St. Thomas More pray for us!
I still remember reading Dominus Iesus or whatever Benny 16 put out as his encyclical that non-Catholic churches were merely "ecclesial communities" and being horrified. At the time I thought "Catholics aren't even Christians and they're telling us we aren't!?" ... I guess I didn't realize that Catholics probably thought they were Christians, but that would've saved me some confusion.
It was that document and the Catholic-Protestant Debate which I visited around that time which led me to what is (in my opinion) one of the most important points in Church History. As I looked for which Church I wanted to join I still had my unbiblical concept of the invisible church but then I read these words in the Nicene Creed, which J.N.D. Kelly, and Philip Schaff said was considered early on to be an infallible pronouncement in the eyes of the primitive Church (the Nicene Creed that is).
"We/I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" . The next line about baptism scared me as well. I knew there were only 3 churches applying for that job description and so I began studying Anglicanism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism. While I still like all 3 of those, I've chosen the last because I believe it meets those standards best.
While reading the story of St. Edmund Campion the other day it reminded me of this phrase. I'm still looking for a confirmation saint and while Augustine and Aquinas have been the steady tie, 2 others have come up recently. St Edmund Campion and St. Thomas More. I want one of them because they lived in what I call "the era of complicated Christianity" (or after the Reformation). It was an utter mess, and I want to be able to identify with someone who wasn't just a Western Christian but was specifically faithful to Catholicism and was killed for his strength of conviction.
I'm really thinking it's going to be one of the English martyrs who died for the primacy of the Holy See that ends up being my patron saint. I LOVE what St. Edmund Campion said at his trial where he defended himself vehemently against all the charges of those English martyrs: His beautiful words:
"In condemning us, you condemn all your own ancestors, all our ancient bishops and kings, all that was once the glory of England -- the island of saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter" - St. Edmund Campion
That almost gives me goosebumps. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered, which is really horrific, if you don't know what that entails, read about it on wikipedia. I think about St. Edmund and St. Thomas More and how they died for that phrase, that jewel of dogmas of Ancient Christendom "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church".
St. Edmund Campion pray for us!
St. Thomas More pray for us!
Monday, September 1, 2008
Why I Cannot Be A Protestant Christian (Part 3): Petrine Supremacy
I was going to write a lengthly post on Petrine Supremacy, but I found online this short essay on the subject by Pope Benedict XVI, St. Peter's current successor, and he does a much better job than I could. Here it is:
"In recounting Jesus' first meeting with Simon, the brother of Andrew, John the Evangelist records a unique event: Jesus "looked at him and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)'" (Jn 1:42).
It was not Jesus' practice to change his disciples' names: apart from the nickname "sons of thunder", which in specific circumstances he attributed to the sons of Zebedee (cf. Mk 3:17) and never used again. He never gave any of his disciples a new name.
Yet, he gave one to Simon, calling him "Cephas". This name was later translated into Greek as Petros and into Latin as Petrus. And it was translated precisely because it was not only a name; it was a "mandate" that Petrus received in that way from the Lord. The new name Petrus was to recur frequently in the Gospels and ended by replacing "Simon", his original name.
Peter's special prominence
This fact acquires special importance if one bears in mind that in the Old Testament, a change of name usually preceded the entrustment of a mission (cf. Gn 17:5; 32:28ff., etc.).
Indeed, many signs indicate Christ's desire to give Peter special prominence within the Apostolic College: in Capernaum the Teacher enters Peter's house (cf. Mk 1:29): when the crowd becomes pressed on the shore of Lake Genesaret, seeing two boats moored there, Jesus chooses Simon's (cf. Lk 5:3); when, on certain occasions, Jesus takes only three disciples with him, Peter is always recorded as the first of the group: as in the raising of Jairus' daughter (cf. Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51), in the Transfiguration (cf. Mk 9:2; Mt 17:1: Lk 9:28) and during the agony in the Garden or Gethsemane (cf. Mk 14:33: Mt 26:37). And again: the Temple tax collectors address Peter and the Teacher pays only for himself and Peter (cf. Mt 17:24-27); it is Peter's feet that he washes first at the Last Supper (cf. Jn 13:6), and for Peter alone he prays that his faith will not fail so that he will be able to strengthen the other disciples in faith (cf. Lk 22:34-31).
Moreover, Peter himself was aware of his special position: he often also spoke on behalf of the others, asking for the explanation of a difficult parable (cf. Mt 15:15), the exact meaning of a precept (cf. Mt 18:21) or the formal promise of a reward (cf. Mt 19:27).
It is Peter in particular who resolves certain embarrassing situations by intervening on behalf of all. Thus, when Jesus, saddened by the misunderstanding of the crowd after the Bread of Life discourse, asks: "Will you also go away?", Peter's answer is peremptory in tone: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (cf. Jn 6:67-69).
Equally decisive is the profession of faith which, again on behalf of the Twelve, he makes near Caesarea Philippi. To Jesus' question: "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answers: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:15.1). Jesus responded by pronouncing the solemn declaration that defines Peter's role in the Church once and for all: "And I tell you: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.... I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:18.19).
In themselves, the three metaphors that Jesus uses are crystal clear: Peter will be the rocky foundation on which he will build the edifice of the Church; he will have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to open or close it to people as he sees fit; lastly, he will be able to bind or to loose, in the sense of establishing or prohibiting whatever he deems necessary for the life of the Church. It is always Christ's Church, not Peter's.
Thus, vivid images portray what the subsequent reflection will describe by the term: "primacy of jurisdiction".
Peter, first among the disciples
This pre-eminent position that Jesus wanted to bestow upon Peter is also encountered after the Resurrection: Jesus charges the women to announce it especially to Peter, as distinct from the other Apostles (cf. Mk 16:7); it is to Peter and John that Mary Magdalene runs to tell them that the stone has been rolled away from the entrance to the tomb (cf. Jn 20:2), and John was to stand back to let Peter enter first when they arrived at the empty tomb (cf. Jn 20:4-6).
Then, Peter was to be the first witness of an appearance of the Risen One (cf. Lk 24:34; I Cor 15:5). His role, decisively emphasized (cf. Jn 20:3-10), marks the continuity between the preeminence he had in the group of the Apostles and the pre-eminence he would continue to have in the community born with the paschal events, as the Book of Acts testifies (cf. 1:15-26; 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:1-11, 29; 8:14-17; 10; etc.).
His behaviour was considered so decisive that it prompted remarks as well as criticism (cf. Acts 11:1-18; Gal 2:11-14).
At the so-called Council of Jerusalem Peter played a directive role (cf. Acts 15; Gal 2:1-10), and precisely because he was a witness of authentic faith, Paul himself recognized that he had a certain quality of "leadership" (cf. I Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:7ff., etc.).
Moreover, the fact that several of the key texts that refer to Peter can be traced back to the context of the Last Supper, during which Christ conferred upon Peter the ministry of strengthening his brethren (cf. Lk 22:31ff.), shows that the ministry entrusted to Peter was one of the constitutive elements of the Church, which was born from the commemoration of the Pasch celebrated in the Eucharist.
This contextualization of the Primacy of Peter at the Last Supper, at the moment of the Institution of the Eucharist, the Lord's Pasch, also points to the ultimate meaning of this Primacy: Peter must be the custodian of communion with Christ for all time. He must guide people to communion with Christ; he must ensure that the net does not break, and consequently that universal communion endures. Only together can we be with Christ, who is Lord of all.
Thus, Peter is responsible for guaranteeing communion with Christ, with the love of Christ, guiding people to fulfil this love in everyday life. Let us pray that the Primacy of Peter, entrusted to poor human beings, will always be exercised in this original sense as the Lord desired, and that its true meaning will therefore always be recognized by the brethren who are not yet in full communion with us. " -Peter, the Rock by Pope Benedict XVI
"In recounting Jesus' first meeting with Simon, the brother of Andrew, John the Evangelist records a unique event: Jesus "looked at him and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)'" (Jn 1:42).
It was not Jesus' practice to change his disciples' names: apart from the nickname "sons of thunder", which in specific circumstances he attributed to the sons of Zebedee (cf. Mk 3:17) and never used again. He never gave any of his disciples a new name.
Yet, he gave one to Simon, calling him "Cephas". This name was later translated into Greek as Petros and into Latin as Petrus. And it was translated precisely because it was not only a name; it was a "mandate" that Petrus received in that way from the Lord. The new name Petrus was to recur frequently in the Gospels and ended by replacing "Simon", his original name.
Peter's special prominence
This fact acquires special importance if one bears in mind that in the Old Testament, a change of name usually preceded the entrustment of a mission (cf. Gn 17:5; 32:28ff., etc.).
Indeed, many signs indicate Christ's desire to give Peter special prominence within the Apostolic College: in Capernaum the Teacher enters Peter's house (cf. Mk 1:29): when the crowd becomes pressed on the shore of Lake Genesaret, seeing two boats moored there, Jesus chooses Simon's (cf. Lk 5:3); when, on certain occasions, Jesus takes only three disciples with him, Peter is always recorded as the first of the group: as in the raising of Jairus' daughter (cf. Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51), in the Transfiguration (cf. Mk 9:2; Mt 17:1: Lk 9:28) and during the agony in the Garden or Gethsemane (cf. Mk 14:33: Mt 26:37). And again: the Temple tax collectors address Peter and the Teacher pays only for himself and Peter (cf. Mt 17:24-27); it is Peter's feet that he washes first at the Last Supper (cf. Jn 13:6), and for Peter alone he prays that his faith will not fail so that he will be able to strengthen the other disciples in faith (cf. Lk 22:34-31).
Moreover, Peter himself was aware of his special position: he often also spoke on behalf of the others, asking for the explanation of a difficult parable (cf. Mt 15:15), the exact meaning of a precept (cf. Mt 18:21) or the formal promise of a reward (cf. Mt 19:27).
It is Peter in particular who resolves certain embarrassing situations by intervening on behalf of all. Thus, when Jesus, saddened by the misunderstanding of the crowd after the Bread of Life discourse, asks: "Will you also go away?", Peter's answer is peremptory in tone: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (cf. Jn 6:67-69).
Equally decisive is the profession of faith which, again on behalf of the Twelve, he makes near Caesarea Philippi. To Jesus' question: "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answers: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:15.1). Jesus responded by pronouncing the solemn declaration that defines Peter's role in the Church once and for all: "And I tell you: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.... I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:18.19).
In themselves, the three metaphors that Jesus uses are crystal clear: Peter will be the rocky foundation on which he will build the edifice of the Church; he will have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to open or close it to people as he sees fit; lastly, he will be able to bind or to loose, in the sense of establishing or prohibiting whatever he deems necessary for the life of the Church. It is always Christ's Church, not Peter's.
Thus, vivid images portray what the subsequent reflection will describe by the term: "primacy of jurisdiction".
Peter, first among the disciples
This pre-eminent position that Jesus wanted to bestow upon Peter is also encountered after the Resurrection: Jesus charges the women to announce it especially to Peter, as distinct from the other Apostles (cf. Mk 16:7); it is to Peter and John that Mary Magdalene runs to tell them that the stone has been rolled away from the entrance to the tomb (cf. Jn 20:2), and John was to stand back to let Peter enter first when they arrived at the empty tomb (cf. Jn 20:4-6).
Then, Peter was to be the first witness of an appearance of the Risen One (cf. Lk 24:34; I Cor 15:5). His role, decisively emphasized (cf. Jn 20:3-10), marks the continuity between the preeminence he had in the group of the Apostles and the pre-eminence he would continue to have in the community born with the paschal events, as the Book of Acts testifies (cf. 1:15-26; 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:1-11, 29; 8:14-17; 10; etc.).
His behaviour was considered so decisive that it prompted remarks as well as criticism (cf. Acts 11:1-18; Gal 2:11-14).
At the so-called Council of Jerusalem Peter played a directive role (cf. Acts 15; Gal 2:1-10), and precisely because he was a witness of authentic faith, Paul himself recognized that he had a certain quality of "leadership" (cf. I Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:7ff., etc.).
Moreover, the fact that several of the key texts that refer to Peter can be traced back to the context of the Last Supper, during which Christ conferred upon Peter the ministry of strengthening his brethren (cf. Lk 22:31ff.), shows that the ministry entrusted to Peter was one of the constitutive elements of the Church, which was born from the commemoration of the Pasch celebrated in the Eucharist.
This contextualization of the Primacy of Peter at the Last Supper, at the moment of the Institution of the Eucharist, the Lord's Pasch, also points to the ultimate meaning of this Primacy: Peter must be the custodian of communion with Christ for all time. He must guide people to communion with Christ; he must ensure that the net does not break, and consequently that universal communion endures. Only together can we be with Christ, who is Lord of all.
Thus, Peter is responsible for guaranteeing communion with Christ, with the love of Christ, guiding people to fulfil this love in everyday life. Let us pray that the Primacy of Peter, entrusted to poor human beings, will always be exercised in this original sense as the Lord desired, and that its true meaning will therefore always be recognized by the brethren who are not yet in full communion with us. " -Peter, the Rock by Pope Benedict XVI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)