Just a meme I created. :-)
https://www.facebook.com/athanasius/posts/10212948595528591
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Thursday, December 7, 2017
"Deck the Heretic in Folly"
[In honor of Santa Claus (i.e., St. Nicholas) punching Arius at the Council of Nicea in 325 for denying the divinity of Christ. Yes, yes, I know, the story is historically dubious, and certainly not to be imitated in any case, but still...]
Deck the heretic in folly falalalalalalala!
Lest the flock be melancholy falalalalalalala!
The Trinity now do affirm ye falalalalalalala!
The Three in One and One in Three falalalalalalala!"
Deck the heretic in folly falalalalalalala!
Lest the flock be melancholy falalalalalalala!
The Trinity now do affirm ye falalalalalalala!
The Three in One and One in Three falalalalalalala!"
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Praying to Saints and 1 Timothy 2:5
Objection: Does not the Catholic practice of praying to saints contradict 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”?
Recall first of all what Catholics mean by “praying to the saints”: they are using the word “pray” in the older sense of the term, in which “pray” simply meant to “ask”. (One sees this usage in the King James Bible; for instance, Gen 24:17) In other words, when Catholics “pray” to the saints, they are asking the saints something, namely, for the saints to pray for them. Just as we may ask our friends here on earth to pray for us, so we may ask those in heaven to pray for us. That is, in substance, all “praying to the saints” consists of.
Now, there are various objections people do raise to this practice, of course, which need to be addressed at some point. At the moment, however, I will limit myself to the one presented in the above question. And when we understand what is actually meant by "praying to the saints", it becomes clear that the aspect of the practice which is supposed by the objection above to violate the passage from 1 Timothy (the saints being “mediators” by interceding for us) would in fact apply just as much to asking fellow Christians on earth to pray for us. After all, in that respect both practices are exactly the same: they both consist of asking others to intercede for us. If 1 Timothy 2:5 condemns the one practice, then it condemns the other for the very same reason.
Should we therefore refrain from asking others on earth to pray for us? No. After all, there are various passages in the New Testament that presuppose it is perfectly acceptable and praiseworthy to pray for others. Thus, we see Jesus tell us to pray even for our enemies in the Sermon on the Mount (which Stephen did in Acts 7 when he was being stoned). Or again, when Peter was put in prison by Herod, “prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him” (Acts 12:5). So, too, Paul quite often asks for prayers on his behalf from others (i.e. Rom 15:30-32; Eph 6:18-20; Col 4:3-4, etc.). In no case is that seen as contradicting Christ’s unqiue mediatorship. Perhaps most importantly (from the perspective of the present question), we see that in the immediate context of the “one mediator” passage, Paul is exhorting intercession to be made for others!
Paul seems to explain himself by continuing in verse six that Christ is the one mediator in the sense of being the one “who gave himself a ransom for all”. In other words, Christ is the one mediator in that it was His death on the cross that reconciles us to the Father. By being both fully God as well as fully man, Christ’s sacrifice was of infinite value, and therefore the source of our redemption. “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2) Or, as the book of Hebrews describes His unique mediatorship: “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” (Heb 9:15) That being the case, we also read: “Wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (Heb 7:25)
No mere creature, however exalted, is or could possibly be a mediator in that sense. Only Christ can, for only Christ’s sacrifice is of infinite value, and therefore able to atone for our sins.
But this does not entail that others cannot be “mediators” in a subordinate sense in various ways, ones that are rooted and gain value from being united to Christ’s unique mediatorship. Hence, asking others to pray for us (whether those on earth or in heaven), far from contradicting Christ’s position as the one mediator, in fact presupposes it, because it is rooted in His mediatorship.
Recall first of all what Catholics mean by “praying to the saints”: they are using the word “pray” in the older sense of the term, in which “pray” simply meant to “ask”. (One sees this usage in the King James Bible; for instance, Gen 24:17) In other words, when Catholics “pray” to the saints, they are asking the saints something, namely, for the saints to pray for them. Just as we may ask our friends here on earth to pray for us, so we may ask those in heaven to pray for us. That is, in substance, all “praying to the saints” consists of.
Now, there are various objections people do raise to this practice, of course, which need to be addressed at some point. At the moment, however, I will limit myself to the one presented in the above question. And when we understand what is actually meant by "praying to the saints", it becomes clear that the aspect of the practice which is supposed by the objection above to violate the passage from 1 Timothy (the saints being “mediators” by interceding for us) would in fact apply just as much to asking fellow Christians on earth to pray for us. After all, in that respect both practices are exactly the same: they both consist of asking others to intercede for us. If 1 Timothy 2:5 condemns the one practice, then it condemns the other for the very same reason.
Should we therefore refrain from asking others on earth to pray for us? No. After all, there are various passages in the New Testament that presuppose it is perfectly acceptable and praiseworthy to pray for others. Thus, we see Jesus tell us to pray even for our enemies in the Sermon on the Mount (which Stephen did in Acts 7 when he was being stoned). Or again, when Peter was put in prison by Herod, “prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him” (Acts 12:5). So, too, Paul quite often asks for prayers on his behalf from others (i.e. Rom 15:30-32; Eph 6:18-20; Col 4:3-4, etc.). In no case is that seen as contradicting Christ’s unqiue mediatorship. Perhaps most importantly (from the perspective of the present question), we see that in the immediate context of the “one mediator” passage, Paul is exhorting intercession to be made for others!
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Tim 2:1-6)Clearly then, when Paul writes that Christ is the “one mediator”, he does not mean that we cannot intercede for each other, for otherwise he would be contradicting what he just wrote four verses earlier. In what respect is Christ the “one mediator between God and men” then?
Paul seems to explain himself by continuing in verse six that Christ is the one mediator in the sense of being the one “who gave himself a ransom for all”. In other words, Christ is the one mediator in that it was His death on the cross that reconciles us to the Father. By being both fully God as well as fully man, Christ’s sacrifice was of infinite value, and therefore the source of our redemption. “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2) Or, as the book of Hebrews describes His unique mediatorship: “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” (Heb 9:15) That being the case, we also read: “Wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (Heb 7:25)
No mere creature, however exalted, is or could possibly be a mediator in that sense. Only Christ can, for only Christ’s sacrifice is of infinite value, and therefore able to atone for our sins.
But this does not entail that others cannot be “mediators” in a subordinate sense in various ways, ones that are rooted and gain value from being united to Christ’s unique mediatorship. Hence, asking others to pray for us (whether those on earth or in heaven), far from contradicting Christ’s position as the one mediator, in fact presupposes it, because it is rooted in His mediatorship.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
"Call No Man On Earth Father"
Objection: Why do Catholics call priests “Father” when in Matthew 23:9 Jesus states “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
An interesting bit of trivia I once encountered is that the third century Christian writer Origen reportedly castrated himself, apparently taking literally our Lord’s statement concerning those who “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” (Such an action is all the more surprising given Origen's reputation for applying allegorical methods of interpretation to the Scriptures.) Regardless, however, of the particular circumstances of that incident, it is useful for illustrating the dangers of approaching Scripture with a remorselessly literal interpretation at all times. One could choose other examples as well, such as Christ’s commands to pluck out our eyes or cut off our hands if they offend us. In those passages, we all realize that He is using hyperbole, and that to take such verses in a strictly literal manner is to do damage to the point that is being taught, and is to in fact distort the meaning of Scripture.
Yet we also realize that other parts of Scripture are indeed to be taken literally. For instance, when the Gospels record the virgin birth of Christ, or Paul affirms the historicity of the Resurrection, such statements are to be taken literally; to do otherwise is to spurn the word of God in favor of our own ideas. So the question we must ask ourselves is this: what kind of statement does Matthew 23:9 qualify as? Should we interpret it strictly literally, or is Jesus (as when He states to mutilate ourselves in the examples cited above) simply using a hyperbole to make a larger point? I think other passages of Scripture make it clear that He is speaking hyperbolically, but first let us discuss the most fundamental problem (apart from what else Scripture says) with taking the former approach instead.
The obvious objection to taking His words strictly literally is to note that under such a scenario, we would be forbidden to call even our male parent “Father”. Few are willing to go to that extreme, of course, but even those who would bite the bullet and start referring to their male parent differently (say, by his given name) still face an obstacle: they would be depriving the term “father” of any source of meaning as an analogy to be applied to God. What would saying God is our “Father” mean if we have no human person we refer to as father? For while like all analogies it is imperfect (human fatherhood bearing only a faint likeness to the divine fatherhood from which it is derived), nevertheless it is the shadow of the divine fatherhood found in human fathers that helps us to comprehend in a dim way God’s fatherhood. That is why Christ refers to God as our Father in the first place. If we destroy the notion of human fatherhood, then the word “father” can no longer function as an analogy, and simply becomes a meaningless term to us.
Most people would acknowledge this problem, and therefore maintain that the prohibition of using the term “father” only applies in a religious context. Yet is such a distinction justified? If one is to insist on taking the text strictly literally, simply based on the words of the text (no more and no less), then the command would appear to be absolute. Therefore, by acknowledging exceptions (as in the case of biological fatherhood), it becomes clear that those objecting to the Catholic practice already recognize that Jesus has something more fundamental in view than simply prohibiting using a certain term in reference to other people. They already partially acknowledge that Jesus's words are to that extent not to be taken absolutely literally, but are hyperbolic. The question then becomes: why should we take them literally when applied in a religious context?
For, after all, the writers of the New Testament had no difficulty in the concept of spiritual fatherhood as applied to men as well as to God. Thus, Paul refers to Abraham as “the father of us all” (Rom 4:16-17), including the Gentiles, and that obviously being in a religious sense (for he was not the father of the Gentiles in a biological sense). Paul also states concerning himself in 1 Corinthians 4:15 that “though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” He refers to Timothy as “my own son in the faith” (1 Tim 1:2), and Onesimus as “my son...whom I have begotten in my bonds” (Phmn 10). So, too, John refers to others as his spiritual children (cf. 1 John 2:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 4). One could go on, but that makes it clear that the idea of men who are spiritual fathers is well established in the New Testament as legitimate.
Still, some may maintain that even though spiritual fatherhood may be acknowledged, using the word “Father” as a title is nevertheless forbidden. This distinction, besides suffering from the same difficulty as noted above as not being rooted in the actual words of the text (and so what is the basis for it?), would also prove too much (and therefore, as the saying goes, would prove nothing.) For Jesus also states in context not to call any man “Rabbi”, which simply means "teacher" or "doctor". Yet how few object to calling others "Teacher" or "Doctor" as a title! And, again, Jesus forbids us to call others “Master”. And yet, the title "Mister" is derived from the word "Master". Are we therefore forbidden to call other men "Mister" as well? (“Fred Roger’s Neighborhood” does certainly have a different ring to it!)
In short, most of the time nobody takes the words of Matthew 23:9 literally. In fact, it seems the only time they are ever taken literally is when the subject of Catholics addressing priests as “Father” comes up, but the rest of the time the hyperbolic nature of the command is acknowledged. It would seem, therefore, with no better reasons being given for any distinction, that Christ's words should not be taken literally then, either.
But if the text is simply a hyperbole emphasizing a larger point (as in the other examples of Jesus’s use of hyperbole noted above), what is the point he is trying to hammer home? It would appear from the context to be this: that we should allow no man to take the place of God’s supreme fatherhood. “One is your father which is in heaven”, in that God is the source of all fatherhood. No man (such as a priest or Pharisee in Jesus’s time, or in a modern-day context for Catholics, no priest, pastor, bishop, or pope, for that matter) has any claim that would trump God’s supreme fatherhood.
But that does not mean they cannot share in His fatherhood in a subordinate position, just as our own natural fathers do. Just as Christ is the “one mediator between God and men” (cf. 1 Tim 2:5), yet that does not prevent others from partaking in that one mediatorship in a subordinate position by praying for others, for instance (cf. 1 Tim 2:1), but is rather the basis for it, so too is the case here. Others can be fathers subordinately only by God sharing His own fatherhood with them, "from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth receives it name" (Eph 3:15), and in no other way [1].
But cut off from that source, they cease to have any claim to being acknowledged as "father". One should not call any man "father" whose fatherhood is not in fact sourced in some way, and therefore an acknowledgement of, God’s supreme fatherhood, thereby eliminating any basis for pride and Pharisaical self-satisfaction.
[1] Confraternity Version. Some translations render this verse something like "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named" (ESV). However, as a textual note to this verse in the ESV states, "the Greek word patria in verse 15 is closely related to the word for Father in verse 14."
An interesting bit of trivia I once encountered is that the third century Christian writer Origen reportedly castrated himself, apparently taking literally our Lord’s statement concerning those who “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” (Such an action is all the more surprising given Origen's reputation for applying allegorical methods of interpretation to the Scriptures.) Regardless, however, of the particular circumstances of that incident, it is useful for illustrating the dangers of approaching Scripture with a remorselessly literal interpretation at all times. One could choose other examples as well, such as Christ’s commands to pluck out our eyes or cut off our hands if they offend us. In those passages, we all realize that He is using hyperbole, and that to take such verses in a strictly literal manner is to do damage to the point that is being taught, and is to in fact distort the meaning of Scripture.
Yet we also realize that other parts of Scripture are indeed to be taken literally. For instance, when the Gospels record the virgin birth of Christ, or Paul affirms the historicity of the Resurrection, such statements are to be taken literally; to do otherwise is to spurn the word of God in favor of our own ideas. So the question we must ask ourselves is this: what kind of statement does Matthew 23:9 qualify as? Should we interpret it strictly literally, or is Jesus (as when He states to mutilate ourselves in the examples cited above) simply using a hyperbole to make a larger point? I think other passages of Scripture make it clear that He is speaking hyperbolically, but first let us discuss the most fundamental problem (apart from what else Scripture says) with taking the former approach instead.
The obvious objection to taking His words strictly literally is to note that under such a scenario, we would be forbidden to call even our male parent “Father”. Few are willing to go to that extreme, of course, but even those who would bite the bullet and start referring to their male parent differently (say, by his given name) still face an obstacle: they would be depriving the term “father” of any source of meaning as an analogy to be applied to God. What would saying God is our “Father” mean if we have no human person we refer to as father? For while like all analogies it is imperfect (human fatherhood bearing only a faint likeness to the divine fatherhood from which it is derived), nevertheless it is the shadow of the divine fatherhood found in human fathers that helps us to comprehend in a dim way God’s fatherhood. That is why Christ refers to God as our Father in the first place. If we destroy the notion of human fatherhood, then the word “father” can no longer function as an analogy, and simply becomes a meaningless term to us.
Most people would acknowledge this problem, and therefore maintain that the prohibition of using the term “father” only applies in a religious context. Yet is such a distinction justified? If one is to insist on taking the text strictly literally, simply based on the words of the text (no more and no less), then the command would appear to be absolute. Therefore, by acknowledging exceptions (as in the case of biological fatherhood), it becomes clear that those objecting to the Catholic practice already recognize that Jesus has something more fundamental in view than simply prohibiting using a certain term in reference to other people. They already partially acknowledge that Jesus's words are to that extent not to be taken absolutely literally, but are hyperbolic. The question then becomes: why should we take them literally when applied in a religious context?
For, after all, the writers of the New Testament had no difficulty in the concept of spiritual fatherhood as applied to men as well as to God. Thus, Paul refers to Abraham as “the father of us all” (Rom 4:16-17), including the Gentiles, and that obviously being in a religious sense (for he was not the father of the Gentiles in a biological sense). Paul also states concerning himself in 1 Corinthians 4:15 that “though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” He refers to Timothy as “my own son in the faith” (1 Tim 1:2), and Onesimus as “my son...whom I have begotten in my bonds” (Phmn 10). So, too, John refers to others as his spiritual children (cf. 1 John 2:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 4). One could go on, but that makes it clear that the idea of men who are spiritual fathers is well established in the New Testament as legitimate.
Still, some may maintain that even though spiritual fatherhood may be acknowledged, using the word “Father” as a title is nevertheless forbidden. This distinction, besides suffering from the same difficulty as noted above as not being rooted in the actual words of the text (and so what is the basis for it?), would also prove too much (and therefore, as the saying goes, would prove nothing.) For Jesus also states in context not to call any man “Rabbi”, which simply means "teacher" or "doctor". Yet how few object to calling others "Teacher" or "Doctor" as a title! And, again, Jesus forbids us to call others “Master”. And yet, the title "Mister" is derived from the word "Master". Are we therefore forbidden to call other men "Mister" as well? (“Fred Roger’s Neighborhood” does certainly have a different ring to it!)
In short, most of the time nobody takes the words of Matthew 23:9 literally. In fact, it seems the only time they are ever taken literally is when the subject of Catholics addressing priests as “Father” comes up, but the rest of the time the hyperbolic nature of the command is acknowledged. It would seem, therefore, with no better reasons being given for any distinction, that Christ's words should not be taken literally then, either.
But if the text is simply a hyperbole emphasizing a larger point (as in the other examples of Jesus’s use of hyperbole noted above), what is the point he is trying to hammer home? It would appear from the context to be this: that we should allow no man to take the place of God’s supreme fatherhood. “One is your father which is in heaven”, in that God is the source of all fatherhood. No man (such as a priest or Pharisee in Jesus’s time, or in a modern-day context for Catholics, no priest, pastor, bishop, or pope, for that matter) has any claim that would trump God’s supreme fatherhood.
But that does not mean they cannot share in His fatherhood in a subordinate position, just as our own natural fathers do. Just as Christ is the “one mediator between God and men” (cf. 1 Tim 2:5), yet that does not prevent others from partaking in that one mediatorship in a subordinate position by praying for others, for instance (cf. 1 Tim 2:1), but is rather the basis for it, so too is the case here. Others can be fathers subordinately only by God sharing His own fatherhood with them, "from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth receives it name" (Eph 3:15), and in no other way [1].
But cut off from that source, they cease to have any claim to being acknowledged as "father". One should not call any man "father" whose fatherhood is not in fact sourced in some way, and therefore an acknowledgement of, God’s supreme fatherhood, thereby eliminating any basis for pride and Pharisaical self-satisfaction.
Notes
____________
[1] Confraternity Version. Some translations render this verse something like "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named" (ESV). However, as a textual note to this verse in the ESV states, "the Greek word patria in verse 15 is closely related to the word for Father in verse 14."
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Catholics and the Bible
Objection: Catholics don't read the Bible, being discouraged from doing so. Even those that do are not allowed to interpret it according to the Holy Spirit but rely on someone in Rome to tell them what to think.
Do Catholics read the Bible? Obviously, the answer to such a question depends on the individual Catholic. Certainly, however, all myths to the contrary notwithstanding, Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible by the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for instance, states:
Of course, it is true that most Catholics throughout the Church's history have experienced the power of the Word of God primarily in the context of the liturgy of the church as distinct from personal reading, but this should cause no surprise. First, a great portion of Scripture (such as Paul's letters to the various churches he founded, for instance) were originally written precisely to be read aloud in such a context, so it should hardly be surprising that such a pattern has continued in the Church as the primary mode of reaching the masses. And, more obviously, until the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century, copies of the Bible had to be copied out by hand, and consequently were rare and very expensive. Moreover, most of the population could not read and write in any case. That being so, naturally the average Catholic of necessity could not read the Bible for most of the history of the Church (such still holding true even today in many parts of the world). If that is indeed the case, then what else could the Church do other than what she did, in fact, do, that is, try to make sure that the average Catholic still was aware of the Bible through the liturgy, sermons, plays, art, statues, stained-glass windows, and other avenues of teaching which Christendom has produced, and which are filled with Scripture? Once the printing press was invented, however, editions of the Scriptures in various languages were printed in quick succession, well before the Reformation.
But for the above listed historical reasons, while there is much to recommend the reading and study of Scripture even outside the context of the liturgy, its most natural home is in the liturgy itself. Certainly the providence of God has arranged for such to be the case, such that what is written of the book of Revelation by the Apostle John would apply to the Bible as a whole. "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy" (Rev 1:3, emphasis mine). For most Christians throughout history, they by necessity could only hear the word of God through its proclamation in the Church, or become familiar with it through some such method as described above. And even today, so long as they are faithfully attending the liturgy, then while outside reading is highly encouraged (and done by many Catholics), it is not, strictly speaking, necessary in order to be familiar with the Scriptures. The Church provides the Scriptures to her faithful at every Mass, with the additional security of guidelines for their proper interpretation.
That, in fact, is where the real issue comes into play. It is not that Catholics are not exposed to the Scriptures (as, indeed, the Catholic Mass is filled with them, from beginning to end- which is strange if the Church discourages being familiar with them.) Rather, the objection is instead to the Church's authority to interpret the Scriptures. Many Protestants believe that the individual believer should have freedom from any ecclesial authority when it comes to interpreting the Bible, and instead should ultimately rely only on the Holy Spirit to guide them personally to the correct interpretation. (They do not deny that outside help can be useful, to be sure, but they insist it is not necessary). While that may sound nice in theory, there are various problems with it when put into practice.
The most obvious is the question: what happens when two believers disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, yet both are sure that they are being "led by the Holy Spirit" to the correct interpretation? Is the Holy Spirit contradicting Himself? It is unlikely anybody would wish to make such an assertion. Yet if such is not the case, then it would appear that it is not simply a matter of relying on the Holy Spirit to lead one to the correct interpretation of the text as an individual. Otherwise there should be complete agreement between sincere Christians. (Most especially is this the case when it comes to verses touching the fundamentals of the Christian faith.) Rather, it appears we should instead proclaim, with the humility of the Ethiopian eunuch when asked if he understood the prophet Isaiah, "How can I, except some man should guide me?" (Acts 8:31). The experiences of believers should show that it is not only the Ethiopian eunuch who is in need of such guidance.
And, in fact, we see in the New Testament, that when conflicts arose, appeals were not made to the text of Scripture by itself to settle the disputes. Rather, the faithful trusted the Holy Spirit to guide them to the truth through the instrumentality of the Church, "the pillar and ground of the truth", as the Apostle Paul describes it (1 Tim 3:15).
Thus, when there arose a dispute as to whether it was necessary for Gentiles to first be circumcised before coming into the Church, it was settled, not by an appeal to the text of the Scriptures alone, but rather to the authority of the leaders of the Church gathered at the Council of Jerusalem, and specifically the apostle Peter (cf. Acts 15). They had the authority granted them by Christ. "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us..." the Apostles wrote (Acts 15:28). They indeed could call Scripture as a witness to the correctness of their decisions, but even then, it was certainly the interpretation of the leaders of the Church that was authoritative, and not the interpretation of individuals who opposed the Apostles. The Jewish Christians who believed in the necessity of circumcision for Gentile converts (and who, to say the least of it, could certainly provide Scriptural arguments to back their position from the only Scriptures then existing, the Old Testament) were forced to submit to the authority of the Church, at the risk of being condemned for preaching "another gospel" (Gal 1:6).
It would appear, then, that based on the practice of the New Testament church, that the Holy Spirit guided the Church's understanding of divine revelation in general (and the Scriptures in particular) through those whom Christ gave the authority to "bind and loose" (Matt 16:18; 18:18).
The Spirit did not do so through those who refused to submit to that authority. Those who did that chose rather to imitate the example of certain other early heretics, who perished "in the gainsaying of Core" (Jude 11). The Apostle Jude, in this passage, is alluding to the rebellion of Korah that occurred during Israel's journeying in the wilderness after the Exodus, and after the establishment of the old covenant. Korah's rebellion consisted precisely in protesting that the entire congregation was holy, and therefore need not submit to Moses and Aaron.
(Of course, I hope it goes without saying that I am not at all meaning to suggest that good Protestants are anything at all like the rebels and heretics, described in the Scriptures quoted above, in any aspect other than in rejecting legitimate authority. And even then, I realize that most Protestants do so in all good faith, not realizing it to be such, and so are not to be personally blamed for rejecting it.)
Obviously, the authority of the Pope in particular is another discussion altogether, and as such not something I am able to discuss the Scriptural evidence for in this piece. More to the present topic, however, is the fact that, in any case, certainly the New Testament does take for granted that the leaders of the Church have authority which is divinely instituted, and that those who disregard that authority are in error by doing so. And while I could have gone into more detail by providing many more verses to show this to be the case, in order to keep this piece from getting too long, I stuck to one example, and chose the one I did precisely because of how nicely it parallels the original accusation.
With all that said, I would be remiss if I failed to note that, as a matter of fact, the Church usually grants a fairly wide latitude in interpreting the Scriptures. With the exceptions of a handful of verses, the Church’s guidance in this respect is of a negative nature. That is to say, the Church gives some general guidelines (so as to prevent a Catholic from falling into heresy, for instance), but otherwise gives individual Catholics great freedom to try to figure out how best to interpret the Bible. Thus, if a Catholic were to interpret Scripture in a heretical manner (for instance, interpreting Jesus’s statement in John 14:28 that “my Father is greater than I” in such a manner as to deny Christ’s divinity), then of course the Church would deem such an interpretation to be in error. Such is part of the purpose of the teaching authority of the Church. But otherwise, the Church usually allows Catholics to choose whatever they believe to be the best interpretation, so long as the teachings of the faith are not compromised. It is generally only when the latter occurs that the authority of the Church is invoked.
In short, I believe that the Holy Spirit guides believers through the leaders of the Church, and not just through one’s own interpretation of Scripture.
Do Catholics read the Bible? Obviously, the answer to such a question depends on the individual Catholic. Certainly, however, all myths to the contrary notwithstanding, Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible by the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for instance, states:
The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful...to learn 'the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,' by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. 'Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.' (#133)Nor is such an encouragement to read Scripture a novelty, but rather something the Church has striven to encourage her children to do, whenever possible, since the beginning of her existence, for as Pope Leo XIII described it in his encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus (1893), the Bible is "a Letter, written by our heavenly Father, and transmitted by the sacred writers to the human race in its pilgrimage so far from its heavenly country." For this reason, the Church has also always read from the Scriptures in her liturgy, which is, in itself, soaked in Scripture in its prayers and rituals as well. And, indeed, in the wider culture as a whole, the art, literature, music, and other cultural expressions Christendom has produced through the ages (in which frequent biblical allusions show that the creators take for granted that the audience is familiar with the contents of the sacred page) are witnesses to the care that the Church has taken for diffusing a wide knowledge of holy Scripture.
Of course, it is true that most Catholics throughout the Church's history have experienced the power of the Word of God primarily in the context of the liturgy of the church as distinct from personal reading, but this should cause no surprise. First, a great portion of Scripture (such as Paul's letters to the various churches he founded, for instance) were originally written precisely to be read aloud in such a context, so it should hardly be surprising that such a pattern has continued in the Church as the primary mode of reaching the masses. And, more obviously, until the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century, copies of the Bible had to be copied out by hand, and consequently were rare and very expensive. Moreover, most of the population could not read and write in any case. That being so, naturally the average Catholic of necessity could not read the Bible for most of the history of the Church (such still holding true even today in many parts of the world). If that is indeed the case, then what else could the Church do other than what she did, in fact, do, that is, try to make sure that the average Catholic still was aware of the Bible through the liturgy, sermons, plays, art, statues, stained-glass windows, and other avenues of teaching which Christendom has produced, and which are filled with Scripture? Once the printing press was invented, however, editions of the Scriptures in various languages were printed in quick succession, well before the Reformation.
But for the above listed historical reasons, while there is much to recommend the reading and study of Scripture even outside the context of the liturgy, its most natural home is in the liturgy itself. Certainly the providence of God has arranged for such to be the case, such that what is written of the book of Revelation by the Apostle John would apply to the Bible as a whole. "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy" (Rev 1:3, emphasis mine). For most Christians throughout history, they by necessity could only hear the word of God through its proclamation in the Church, or become familiar with it through some such method as described above. And even today, so long as they are faithfully attending the liturgy, then while outside reading is highly encouraged (and done by many Catholics), it is not, strictly speaking, necessary in order to be familiar with the Scriptures. The Church provides the Scriptures to her faithful at every Mass, with the additional security of guidelines for their proper interpretation.
That, in fact, is where the real issue comes into play. It is not that Catholics are not exposed to the Scriptures (as, indeed, the Catholic Mass is filled with them, from beginning to end- which is strange if the Church discourages being familiar with them.) Rather, the objection is instead to the Church's authority to interpret the Scriptures. Many Protestants believe that the individual believer should have freedom from any ecclesial authority when it comes to interpreting the Bible, and instead should ultimately rely only on the Holy Spirit to guide them personally to the correct interpretation. (They do not deny that outside help can be useful, to be sure, but they insist it is not necessary). While that may sound nice in theory, there are various problems with it when put into practice.
The most obvious is the question: what happens when two believers disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, yet both are sure that they are being "led by the Holy Spirit" to the correct interpretation? Is the Holy Spirit contradicting Himself? It is unlikely anybody would wish to make such an assertion. Yet if such is not the case, then it would appear that it is not simply a matter of relying on the Holy Spirit to lead one to the correct interpretation of the text as an individual. Otherwise there should be complete agreement between sincere Christians. (Most especially is this the case when it comes to verses touching the fundamentals of the Christian faith.) Rather, it appears we should instead proclaim, with the humility of the Ethiopian eunuch when asked if he understood the prophet Isaiah, "How can I, except some man should guide me?" (Acts 8:31). The experiences of believers should show that it is not only the Ethiopian eunuch who is in need of such guidance.
And, in fact, we see in the New Testament, that when conflicts arose, appeals were not made to the text of Scripture by itself to settle the disputes. Rather, the faithful trusted the Holy Spirit to guide them to the truth through the instrumentality of the Church, "the pillar and ground of the truth", as the Apostle Paul describes it (1 Tim 3:15).
Thus, when there arose a dispute as to whether it was necessary for Gentiles to first be circumcised before coming into the Church, it was settled, not by an appeal to the text of the Scriptures alone, but rather to the authority of the leaders of the Church gathered at the Council of Jerusalem, and specifically the apostle Peter (cf. Acts 15). They had the authority granted them by Christ. "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us..." the Apostles wrote (Acts 15:28). They indeed could call Scripture as a witness to the correctness of their decisions, but even then, it was certainly the interpretation of the leaders of the Church that was authoritative, and not the interpretation of individuals who opposed the Apostles. The Jewish Christians who believed in the necessity of circumcision for Gentile converts (and who, to say the least of it, could certainly provide Scriptural arguments to back their position from the only Scriptures then existing, the Old Testament) were forced to submit to the authority of the Church, at the risk of being condemned for preaching "another gospel" (Gal 1:6).
It would appear, then, that based on the practice of the New Testament church, that the Holy Spirit guided the Church's understanding of divine revelation in general (and the Scriptures in particular) through those whom Christ gave the authority to "bind and loose" (Matt 16:18; 18:18).
The Spirit did not do so through those who refused to submit to that authority. Those who did that chose rather to imitate the example of certain other early heretics, who perished "in the gainsaying of Core" (Jude 11). The Apostle Jude, in this passage, is alluding to the rebellion of Korah that occurred during Israel's journeying in the wilderness after the Exodus, and after the establishment of the old covenant. Korah's rebellion consisted precisely in protesting that the entire congregation was holy, and therefore need not submit to Moses and Aaron.
And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? (Num 16:3)The rebels in the desert maintained that "the LORD is among them", and therefore they could disregard the authority of Moses and Aaron, whom they accused of lifting themselves up "above the congregation of the LORD". It is hard not to see the parallel to the accusation above, of those who claim that they have the Holy Spirit, and therefore need not submit to "someone in Rome", whom they frequently accuse of lifting himself up above other Christians. That the Apostle Jude presents heretics in his own day who imitated Korah as having "perished" is a sober warning to us today.
(Of course, I hope it goes without saying that I am not at all meaning to suggest that good Protestants are anything at all like the rebels and heretics, described in the Scriptures quoted above, in any aspect other than in rejecting legitimate authority. And even then, I realize that most Protestants do so in all good faith, not realizing it to be such, and so are not to be personally blamed for rejecting it.)
Obviously, the authority of the Pope in particular is another discussion altogether, and as such not something I am able to discuss the Scriptural evidence for in this piece. More to the present topic, however, is the fact that, in any case, certainly the New Testament does take for granted that the leaders of the Church have authority which is divinely instituted, and that those who disregard that authority are in error by doing so. And while I could have gone into more detail by providing many more verses to show this to be the case, in order to keep this piece from getting too long, I stuck to one example, and chose the one I did precisely because of how nicely it parallels the original accusation.
With all that said, I would be remiss if I failed to note that, as a matter of fact, the Church usually grants a fairly wide latitude in interpreting the Scriptures. With the exceptions of a handful of verses, the Church’s guidance in this respect is of a negative nature. That is to say, the Church gives some general guidelines (so as to prevent a Catholic from falling into heresy, for instance), but otherwise gives individual Catholics great freedom to try to figure out how best to interpret the Bible. Thus, if a Catholic were to interpret Scripture in a heretical manner (for instance, interpreting Jesus’s statement in John 14:28 that “my Father is greater than I” in such a manner as to deny Christ’s divinity), then of course the Church would deem such an interpretation to be in error. Such is part of the purpose of the teaching authority of the Church. But otherwise, the Church usually allows Catholics to choose whatever they believe to be the best interpretation, so long as the teachings of the faith are not compromised. It is generally only when the latter occurs that the authority of the Church is invoked.
In short, I believe that the Holy Spirit guides believers through the leaders of the Church, and not just through one’s own interpretation of Scripture.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Monday, February 22, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)