When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, Catholic bishops had already decided to play it down, despite the obvious monstrous effects the ruling was sure to have. The reason for this is more cultural and political than religious. Its not like the bishops approved of abortion, rather, they had culturally precluded themselves from making a united stand on such an important moral issue. To wit, since FDR's New Deal, Catholics, with their preferential option for the poor, have been, quietly at the least, supporting government solutions to problems. The American populace, mostly the Catholic ones, have gotten used to the bishops' silence. It could be argued that the bishops' silence is somewhat to blame for the eroded confidence their flock has in them; therefore, when the bishops, and I mean ALL Catholic bishops in the United States, condemned the HHS mandate concerning contraception, there are not a few Catholics who disagree with the bishops approach.
To summarize, the bishops are attacking this as an infringement on religious liberty, and rightly so. Some Catholics are arguing that the bishops should be making this about contraception and its negative impacts, as they see this as the central issue (and religious freedom as the secondary issue). Based on the previous actions of this administration, those criticizing the bishops' approach need to carefully reconsider their argument. To be sure, the nation needs a wake-up call when it comes to the contraceptive mentality that is literally killing our nation, and this event may just be the event that can spark that conversation. However, this issue is first and foremost about religious freedom, when we consider what this administration has done.
First, Obama campaigned on a promise to his secular base of getting rid of GW Bush's faith-based charity initiatives, through which certain faith-based charities received funding to carry out tasks the federal government had done. Obama nearly immediately did that. When Obama appointed a director or leader of his faith-based initiative, it was a militant secularist with no love for any religion whatsoever, particularly Catholicism.
Second, there was the Georgetown debacle, in which the president, prior to giving a speech at the university, requested that the Holy Name of Jesus be covered up, on the chance that people see it when they see the president...indeed, he wanted all religious imagery (at a Catholic school) to be blocked out in some way, shape, or form.
Then, you had the lawsuit against Belmont Abbey College, in North Carolina. To summarize that case, a female employee brought a complaint against the college to the local branch of some overseeing Federal agency because Belmont Abbey, a Catholic college, didn't cover chemical contraception in its health insurance plan, in keeping with Catholic teaching. The local branch dismissed the case, and essentially dropped it...until the actual Federal agency stepped in brought a suit against the College.
Fourth, there was the Hosanna-Tabor case, in which the EEOC (a branch of the Executive branch) attempted to force the church to ordain someone they didn't want to.
Then came this current brouhaha over the HHS ruling that mandates that all health insurance plans cover contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs.
Included in that was the US Army's directive that Catholic Chaplains NOT read a letter by their superior (that would be the Archbishop Broglio, ordinary of Archdiocese of the Military) because it contained words that were derogatory towards the commander-in-chief.
Further, I found this out today: a new rule in the Public Student Loan Forgiveness plan, which used to forgive the debts of individuals who were engaged in public service, which included ministry as a public service, removes the benefit from individuals whose "job duties are related to religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing. (here)”
If one wants to take an isolated view that this whole HHS this is about contraception, they are limiting their scope. The fact of the matter is, the HHS specifically discussed limiting the religion exemption to only churches and their employees, neglecting religious affiliated organizations and private companies who align themselves with Church teaching. This was done in light of all things that have gone on since President Obama's inauguration in 2009. This is first and foremost an issue of religious freedom.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and State vs Religion
I've been following numerous opinions and blogs RE the HHS mandate and the "compromise that doesn't compromise" and the number of references to Henry VIII and Elizabeth I can't be counted on fingers (or toes, for that matter). Essentially, the argument goes something like this: Henry assumed control over the Church in England to promote his lustful ways (namely his "marriage" to Anne Boleyn). Under Elizabeth, the state began wresting control over religion and forming new church. On the surface, this matches neatly with what the President is doing (actually combining two monarchs into one...a pretty nifty trick). Just like Henry VIII established himself as the head of the Church in England, so too has Obama, by issuing and supporting the HHS ruling, established his government over the Church (bishops can't even stop their own schools from offering contraceptives to their employees). Henry had numerous Catholic leaders swear allegiance to the State, and Obama is doing the same thing with this mandate. Elizabeth used her authority to batter down vestiges of Catholicism, just like Obama is doing now.
There are, however, some big problems with said comparisons. For one, as Hillaire Belloc points out in his "How the Reformation Happened" what Henry VIII did wasn't really considered that radical. In fact, Belloc contends that it was not out of the ordinary for a monarch to proclaim himself head of the Church of their region, and eventually, things would get back to normal. The bishops who supported Henry's claim, if this course of action was indeed not extra-ordinary, most likely thought it expedient and harmless, because when Henry's daughter, Mary Tudor succeeded to the throne, those bishops supported her Catholic reign. It should also be noted that Henry wasn't essentially anti-Catholic, and didn't make any drastic anti-Catholic measures in terms of worship or doctrine. The most drastic thing he did was confiscate the money and property of the major religious houses (which was also not out of the ordinary for Catholic monarchs to do). Of course, this action was the deal breaker, for rather than use the treasure to bolster his own royal coffers, he used it to pay off his debtors.
When Mary ascended to the throne, her Catholicism was embraced by the populace and the clergy (as evidenced in Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars). Even the old aristocracy supported her Catholicism. It was the new aristocracy, those families and gentry that became wealthy off of Henry's plundering of the monasteries, that took offense: if Mary's re-Catholicization continued its course, their wealth would be stripped from them and returned to the religious orders it originate from. As a consequence, they plotted and schemed to get Elizabeth, who at worst was apathetic in regards to religion, on the throne. Once Elizabeth ascended the throne, these men, the force and strength behind Elizabeth, called the shots and over the course of 50 years, de-Catholicized England.
Because of the above facts, comparisons between Henry VIII and Elizabeth and Obama are lacking.
There are, however, some big problems with said comparisons. For one, as Hillaire Belloc points out in his "How the Reformation Happened" what Henry VIII did wasn't really considered that radical. In fact, Belloc contends that it was not out of the ordinary for a monarch to proclaim himself head of the Church of their region, and eventually, things would get back to normal. The bishops who supported Henry's claim, if this course of action was indeed not extra-ordinary, most likely thought it expedient and harmless, because when Henry's daughter, Mary Tudor succeeded to the throne, those bishops supported her Catholic reign. It should also be noted that Henry wasn't essentially anti-Catholic, and didn't make any drastic anti-Catholic measures in terms of worship or doctrine. The most drastic thing he did was confiscate the money and property of the major religious houses (which was also not out of the ordinary for Catholic monarchs to do). Of course, this action was the deal breaker, for rather than use the treasure to bolster his own royal coffers, he used it to pay off his debtors.
When Mary ascended to the throne, her Catholicism was embraced by the populace and the clergy (as evidenced in Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars). Even the old aristocracy supported her Catholicism. It was the new aristocracy, those families and gentry that became wealthy off of Henry's plundering of the monasteries, that took offense: if Mary's re-Catholicization continued its course, their wealth would be stripped from them and returned to the religious orders it originate from. As a consequence, they plotted and schemed to get Elizabeth, who at worst was apathetic in regards to religion, on the throne. Once Elizabeth ascended the throne, these men, the force and strength behind Elizabeth, called the shots and over the course of 50 years, de-Catholicized England.
Because of the above facts, comparisons between Henry VIII and Elizabeth and Obama are lacking.
Friday, February 3, 2012
On Christian support for the most anti-religious President in US history
The current HHS ruling that religious affiliated employers must violate their consciences and offer insurance that opposes their moral teachings is not the first example of anti-Christian bias by the Obama administration. Several months back, the Administration ordered that Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic college connected with a Benedicitine abbey, be forced to offer contraception to its female employees (in this case, a complaint was brought before a NC department for the reason that the college offered something only men could obtain, but not women, and that only women can take chemical contraception. The NC office denied the complaint, and the case was seemingly closed until the Obama administration took it up). More recently, the EEOC took up the case of a fired teacher at a religious school (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC)and argued that the school discriminated against the teacher when it fired her. The EEOC's argument was that the teacher, while defined as a minister, had the same duties as a lay teacher, and therefore wasn't a minister, and so was discriminated against. (The Supreme Court ruled against this, 9-0).
As I have read about this, in particular the reaction of the Catholic Bishops to this ruling, I noticed a general attitude that this ruling, indeed all the disasters that have befallen us since the inauguration of Barack Obama as President, would not have happened had not 54% of Catholics not voted for the man in the 2008 general election. Further, there is a sense that the self-same bishops that now condemn the predictable ruling based on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) put themselves in this pickle because they bought into Obama's ideas and support Obamacare. Rather than bemoaning such actions, I think a different perspective must be taken.
The American ideal is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Despite Barack Obama's lack of a decent voting record (voting present is a cop-out), and hard-core support for abortion promotion, the fact still remains that many Americans see (or saw) Obama as a genuine concerned citizen who is trying to do his best for the country. I think this best describes the Catholic bishops, and other Christian support for Obama. This is laudable...to an extent.
I may be wrong, but I have yet to hear of any Christian group openly and consistently attack a Presidential administration either before or after their election. Sure, there may be criticisms of a person's policies or statements, but generally Christians will show at worst ambivalence, but generally respect for Presidential candidates and Presidents. My experience has been that Christian denominations have provided information to their members, sometimes particularly slanted due to one or more issues, but have not officially endorsed or condemned any candidate or president, unless they have deserved such attention. Not only does this support the American ideal, but this is truly a Christian attitude. I am specifically thinking of Flavius Constantius' (Constantine I's father) tolerant views of Christians. In direct juxtaposition to the official Roman policy of persecution of Christians, Constantius argued that Christians were model citizens, obeying the law, supporting the government, and not causing any problems...despite being persecuted. As Christians, particularly as Pope Leo XIII reminds us, we are to obey and support the State, provided the State doesn't require us to offend God (which the HHS ruling does).
To be short, I think that viciously attacking and condemning a candidate for President for a couple of policies is generally un-Christian. We must give all people the benefit of the doubt, because all men are created in the image and likeness of God. When Mitt Romney says that he believes that Obama is a good guy, he is, while not being a Christian, is acting more Christian-like than say Newt Gingrich (although much evidence has been amassed in the past 3 years that Gingrich is most likely right). There is a reason why certain men are elected bishops: they contain certain qualities that lend themselves to the office of bishop. For this reason, numerous bishops remained ambivalent or even somewhat supportive of Obamacare, providing certain caveats were met. In this regard, they were showing true Christian charity: they believed that Obama was attempting to solve the healthcare situation in the US.
This, however, doesn't not excuse naivete toward the out-and-out pro-abortionists that supported the law. To some extent, it seems that the bishops who were supportive, or at least gave Obama the benefit of the doubt, were blinded to all clues that hinted at the obvious fact that Obama, Pelosi, and Planned Parenthood were using Obamacare to force federal funding of abortion in an underhanded way. Of course, this isn't surprising the way the bishop's conference crafted the Faithful Citizenship document in a way to encourage the "seamless garment" argument that abortion isn't really the re-eminent moral issue of our time (which it is). Even then, some bishops argued that we needed to be cautious and didn't want to rock the boat unnecessarily (honestly, I don't know of a single bishop who has supported abortion, but would rather talk about helping the poor because its less messy).
The real blame lies solely with a President and his administration that has effectively put a wedge between many Catholics and their bishops. A cursory review of modern history reveals that such an action is entirely consistent with Communist and Socialist dictators: silence religion and/or kowtow it to the State. The Communists did this with the Russian Orthodox Church during the years of the Soviet Union (Patriarch Alexius was the last of the Communist-supported patriarchs). This is also seen in China today, as there are two Catholic Churches: a state-approved Church (which does not have the blessing of the Pope) and the True Church, which operates illegally and underground.
Is the President actively seeking to force the Church (and Communists and Socialists have been nearly unanimous on this issue: the single greatest threat to Socialism or Communism is the Catholic Church, which is why it operates so as to undermine or destroy it) to be subservient to the State, or is he simply misguided? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
As I have read about this, in particular the reaction of the Catholic Bishops to this ruling, I noticed a general attitude that this ruling, indeed all the disasters that have befallen us since the inauguration of Barack Obama as President, would not have happened had not 54% of Catholics not voted for the man in the 2008 general election. Further, there is a sense that the self-same bishops that now condemn the predictable ruling based on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) put themselves in this pickle because they bought into Obama's ideas and support Obamacare. Rather than bemoaning such actions, I think a different perspective must be taken.
The American ideal is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Despite Barack Obama's lack of a decent voting record (voting present is a cop-out), and hard-core support for abortion promotion, the fact still remains that many Americans see (or saw) Obama as a genuine concerned citizen who is trying to do his best for the country. I think this best describes the Catholic bishops, and other Christian support for Obama. This is laudable...to an extent.
I may be wrong, but I have yet to hear of any Christian group openly and consistently attack a Presidential administration either before or after their election. Sure, there may be criticisms of a person's policies or statements, but generally Christians will show at worst ambivalence, but generally respect for Presidential candidates and Presidents. My experience has been that Christian denominations have provided information to their members, sometimes particularly slanted due to one or more issues, but have not officially endorsed or condemned any candidate or president, unless they have deserved such attention. Not only does this support the American ideal, but this is truly a Christian attitude. I am specifically thinking of Flavius Constantius' (Constantine I's father) tolerant views of Christians. In direct juxtaposition to the official Roman policy of persecution of Christians, Constantius argued that Christians were model citizens, obeying the law, supporting the government, and not causing any problems...despite being persecuted. As Christians, particularly as Pope Leo XIII reminds us, we are to obey and support the State, provided the State doesn't require us to offend God (which the HHS ruling does).
To be short, I think that viciously attacking and condemning a candidate for President for a couple of policies is generally un-Christian. We must give all people the benefit of the doubt, because all men are created in the image and likeness of God. When Mitt Romney says that he believes that Obama is a good guy, he is, while not being a Christian, is acting more Christian-like than say Newt Gingrich (although much evidence has been amassed in the past 3 years that Gingrich is most likely right). There is a reason why certain men are elected bishops: they contain certain qualities that lend themselves to the office of bishop. For this reason, numerous bishops remained ambivalent or even somewhat supportive of Obamacare, providing certain caveats were met. In this regard, they were showing true Christian charity: they believed that Obama was attempting to solve the healthcare situation in the US.
This, however, doesn't not excuse naivete toward the out-and-out pro-abortionists that supported the law. To some extent, it seems that the bishops who were supportive, or at least gave Obama the benefit of the doubt, were blinded to all clues that hinted at the obvious fact that Obama, Pelosi, and Planned Parenthood were using Obamacare to force federal funding of abortion in an underhanded way. Of course, this isn't surprising the way the bishop's conference crafted the Faithful Citizenship document in a way to encourage the "seamless garment" argument that abortion isn't really the re-eminent moral issue of our time (which it is). Even then, some bishops argued that we needed to be cautious and didn't want to rock the boat unnecessarily (honestly, I don't know of a single bishop who has supported abortion, but would rather talk about helping the poor because its less messy).
The real blame lies solely with a President and his administration that has effectively put a wedge between many Catholics and their bishops. A cursory review of modern history reveals that such an action is entirely consistent with Communist and Socialist dictators: silence religion and/or kowtow it to the State. The Communists did this with the Russian Orthodox Church during the years of the Soviet Union (Patriarch Alexius was the last of the Communist-supported patriarchs). This is also seen in China today, as there are two Catholic Churches: a state-approved Church (which does not have the blessing of the Pope) and the True Church, which operates illegally and underground.
Is the President actively seeking to force the Church (and Communists and Socialists have been nearly unanimous on this issue: the single greatest threat to Socialism or Communism is the Catholic Church, which is why it operates so as to undermine or destroy it) to be subservient to the State, or is he simply misguided? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Why I am Catholic, Part 2
Tradition played a big part in the Catholic Church's initial attraction to me. Being interested in history, I immediately saw its roots and its presence way back at the close of the Roman Empire. I remember reading in one of my many European history books that the structure of the Church that manifested itself in the West after the fall of Rome was instrumental in saving Western European civilization (in that it provided a structure for the disparate people's to fall back on in the presence of a political vacuum). Tradition (small t) provided an attraction, while authority provided a reason.
PART II: AUTHORITY
The Quest
As a teenager, one figure fascinated me: Pope John Paul II. I cannot state clearly enough how un-Catholic I was. I grew United Methodist, with a smattering of Evangelicalism and Christian Reformed thrown in for good measure. I knew nothing of Catholic ecclesial structure, and my medieval history in 6th grade completely ignored the office of bishop. The only understanding I had of a bishop was that my UMC region had a bishop...but it also had a superintendent as well, and I could never really tell the two apart. I was a member of our church's Pastor-Parish Relations Committee, which meant I was (if necessary) part of the group that would be privy to selecting a new pastor. I understood a congregational model as well as a heirarchical model of pastorship, in that in the UMC, the bishop (or was it superintendent?) would give us a choice of three or four candidates, and we would try them out and choose the one we liked best. If we didn't like any, the bishop (or superintendent) would choose for us.
With that in mind, my fascination with Bl. John Paul II can be explained in light of authority. His Holiness had a reputation for holiness and intelligence. He was also a lightning rod for publicity because of his personality. These were not what I focused on. To me, a Methodist youngster with no understanding of Petrine supremacy, or Apostolic Succession, the Pope (and intrinsically, I understood that JPII would pass away, and another man would take his place..it was the office I was drawn to, because of the person occupying it at the time) was THE spokesperson for all of Christianity. I grew up with experiences like a Clyde Dupin Crusade, and nearly weekly doses of Billy Graham. However, these gentlemen were national phenomenon; the Pope was Universal. No other Christian leader drew as much attention as the Pope. No other Christian leader drew crowds like the Pope. Intrinsically, I understood that if one wanted to discuss Christianity, THE person to go to would be the Pope.
Until college, the person of the Pope was simply a figure, a spokesperson, a trigger-man, so to speak. The issue of authority wasn't a big one. I was raised within the ethos of solo scriptura, but even within that ethos, the authority of a pastor to tell us what the Word of God was saying was paramount (after all, they had the years of theology and Scripture study...we did not). I understood that different people would invariably come to different understandings of Scripture, and I accepted that "the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things". It was within this mindset that my interest in authority grew.
The question on authentic and True interpretation of Scripture was front and center in my interest in authority. Quite quickly, I determined that for all its benefits, solo Scriptura was woefully inadequate. This was due in large part to the discrepancy between what Scripture clearly taught in terms of divorce and how mainstream churches were interpreting that. Essentially, I had read what Christ had to say about marriage and divorce: "what God has joined, let not man put assunder", and yet looked on with astonishment as not only the UMC, but other denominations not once taught the indissolubility of marriage, but also encouraged divorced couples to remarry, in clear violation of Scripture's definition such actions as adultery. Something was clearly amiss. Although not entirely sure of the process, I knew that in the UMC, doctrinal matters were voted on, ultimately, by members of the clergy and the laity. Something was wrong there (to whit, Christ never let His Gospel be open to interpretation or the democratic process, and there was a reason He referred to Heaven as the Kingdom of Heaven, and we all know that kingdoms are democratic).
Perhaps naively, I wanted some one to step in and declare, once and for all, what True Doctrine really was. I looked at the Pope and wondered why we as Methodists didn't have an authority figure like that. It seemed logical to me that we couldn't trust congregations, or an group of congregations to vote on what Scripture was teaching.
The Answer
The issue of authority was, finally, put to rest for me in a round-about way: while attending Mass with my girlfriend (now my wife), the priest's homily made mention of John 6: "Unless you eat of my Flesh and drink of my Blood, you shall not have life within you." As a Protestant, this was offensive. I was always taught that you didn't have to DO anything to be saved (with the exception of "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior"), and yet here I was being told that I needed to do something. I bristled at this for a while, a long while. I couldn't get over, however, how PLAIN John 6 really was. I tried the typical Protestant reaction to redact what Christ said in most of John 6 with what he says in the end: "It is the Spirit that gives life, and the flesh is of no avail...my words are spirit and life." Logically, however, I couldn't get past the fact that Christ Himself never redacted His statement.
One evening while in college, the local Catholic priest offered a question and answer session for those seeking the Catholic Church. My wife/girlfriend encouraged us to attend, so I could ask my question. My question was asked, and answered, but in all honestly, I walked away with something else: a sense of where authority lies. You see, another participant asked about Apostolic Succession, of which I had never heard. The concept, when explained, made perfect sense. To reject it, I thought, was to reject Reason.
The Apostles, whom all Christians acknowledge received their authority from Christ Himself, wouldn't live forever. It seems rather daft to assume that they would allow their flocks to sway in the breeze without some visible authority figure. Ordaining certain men to follow after them, with their authority, is a sure fire way of ensuring that Christians maintain the Gospel, in the absence of Scripture. It also helps establish what Scripture really means.
As I read the Acts of the Apostles, (as the priest suggested), it became clear that Christ gave ONLY the Apostles His authority. Only Peter raised someone from the dead, only Peter healed people, and only the apostles could send out demons. I then read, as the priest suggested, the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. It became increasingly clear that Paul wrote to those two men as an older brother, not as a father. He considered them his equals in authority. Not only that, but he mandates, at least to Timothy, that the authority they received be passed to worthy and upright men.
Clearly, Christ established a Church with authority, authority that passed down from generation to generation. I knew enough about the Reformation to realize that all Christian denominations broke from the Catholic Church. I knew enough about Medieval history to realize that prior to the Schism between the East and West, there was One, Holy, Catholic, Orthodox, and Apostolic Church. I recognized that it was the Catholic Church which existed before the Schism, and before the Reformation. It was the Catholic Church that existed before the fall of Rome.
PART II: AUTHORITY
The Quest
As a teenager, one figure fascinated me: Pope John Paul II. I cannot state clearly enough how un-Catholic I was. I grew United Methodist, with a smattering of Evangelicalism and Christian Reformed thrown in for good measure. I knew nothing of Catholic ecclesial structure, and my medieval history in 6th grade completely ignored the office of bishop. The only understanding I had of a bishop was that my UMC region had a bishop...but it also had a superintendent as well, and I could never really tell the two apart. I was a member of our church's Pastor-Parish Relations Committee, which meant I was (if necessary) part of the group that would be privy to selecting a new pastor. I understood a congregational model as well as a heirarchical model of pastorship, in that in the UMC, the bishop (or was it superintendent?) would give us a choice of three or four candidates, and we would try them out and choose the one we liked best. If we didn't like any, the bishop (or superintendent) would choose for us.
With that in mind, my fascination with Bl. John Paul II can be explained in light of authority. His Holiness had a reputation for holiness and intelligence. He was also a lightning rod for publicity because of his personality. These were not what I focused on. To me, a Methodist youngster with no understanding of Petrine supremacy, or Apostolic Succession, the Pope (and intrinsically, I understood that JPII would pass away, and another man would take his place..it was the office I was drawn to, because of the person occupying it at the time) was THE spokesperson for all of Christianity. I grew up with experiences like a Clyde Dupin Crusade, and nearly weekly doses of Billy Graham. However, these gentlemen were national phenomenon; the Pope was Universal. No other Christian leader drew as much attention as the Pope. No other Christian leader drew crowds like the Pope. Intrinsically, I understood that if one wanted to discuss Christianity, THE person to go to would be the Pope.
Until college, the person of the Pope was simply a figure, a spokesperson, a trigger-man, so to speak. The issue of authority wasn't a big one. I was raised within the ethos of solo scriptura, but even within that ethos, the authority of a pastor to tell us what the Word of God was saying was paramount (after all, they had the years of theology and Scripture study...we did not). I understood that different people would invariably come to different understandings of Scripture, and I accepted that "the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things". It was within this mindset that my interest in authority grew.
The question on authentic and True interpretation of Scripture was front and center in my interest in authority. Quite quickly, I determined that for all its benefits, solo Scriptura was woefully inadequate. This was due in large part to the discrepancy between what Scripture clearly taught in terms of divorce and how mainstream churches were interpreting that. Essentially, I had read what Christ had to say about marriage and divorce: "what God has joined, let not man put assunder", and yet looked on with astonishment as not only the UMC, but other denominations not once taught the indissolubility of marriage, but also encouraged divorced couples to remarry, in clear violation of Scripture's definition such actions as adultery. Something was clearly amiss. Although not entirely sure of the process, I knew that in the UMC, doctrinal matters were voted on, ultimately, by members of the clergy and the laity. Something was wrong there (to whit, Christ never let His Gospel be open to interpretation or the democratic process, and there was a reason He referred to Heaven as the Kingdom of Heaven, and we all know that kingdoms are democratic).
Perhaps naively, I wanted some one to step in and declare, once and for all, what True Doctrine really was. I looked at the Pope and wondered why we as Methodists didn't have an authority figure like that. It seemed logical to me that we couldn't trust congregations, or an group of congregations to vote on what Scripture was teaching.
The Answer
The issue of authority was, finally, put to rest for me in a round-about way: while attending Mass with my girlfriend (now my wife), the priest's homily made mention of John 6: "Unless you eat of my Flesh and drink of my Blood, you shall not have life within you." As a Protestant, this was offensive. I was always taught that you didn't have to DO anything to be saved (with the exception of "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior"), and yet here I was being told that I needed to do something. I bristled at this for a while, a long while. I couldn't get over, however, how PLAIN John 6 really was. I tried the typical Protestant reaction to redact what Christ said in most of John 6 with what he says in the end: "It is the Spirit that gives life, and the flesh is of no avail...my words are spirit and life." Logically, however, I couldn't get past the fact that Christ Himself never redacted His statement.
One evening while in college, the local Catholic priest offered a question and answer session for those seeking the Catholic Church. My wife/girlfriend encouraged us to attend, so I could ask my question. My question was asked, and answered, but in all honestly, I walked away with something else: a sense of where authority lies. You see, another participant asked about Apostolic Succession, of which I had never heard. The concept, when explained, made perfect sense. To reject it, I thought, was to reject Reason.
The Apostles, whom all Christians acknowledge received their authority from Christ Himself, wouldn't live forever. It seems rather daft to assume that they would allow their flocks to sway in the breeze without some visible authority figure. Ordaining certain men to follow after them, with their authority, is a sure fire way of ensuring that Christians maintain the Gospel, in the absence of Scripture. It also helps establish what Scripture really means.
As I read the Acts of the Apostles, (as the priest suggested), it became clear that Christ gave ONLY the Apostles His authority. Only Peter raised someone from the dead, only Peter healed people, and only the apostles could send out demons. I then read, as the priest suggested, the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. It became increasingly clear that Paul wrote to those two men as an older brother, not as a father. He considered them his equals in authority. Not only that, but he mandates, at least to Timothy, that the authority they received be passed to worthy and upright men.
Clearly, Christ established a Church with authority, authority that passed down from generation to generation. I knew enough about the Reformation to realize that all Christian denominations broke from the Catholic Church. I knew enough about Medieval history to realize that prior to the Schism between the East and West, there was One, Holy, Catholic, Orthodox, and Apostolic Church. I recognized that it was the Catholic Church which existed before the Schism, and before the Reformation. It was the Catholic Church that existed before the fall of Rome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)