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.
No comments:
Post a Comment