Wistful Thinking
Our second son moved off to college last week leaving only our daughter, a high school senior, at home. One more year before we become empty-nesters. Being an emotional father who was always most comfortable when all three children were tucked firmly in their beds, I had a difficult time keeping my composure those last few days as the reality of another soon-to-be empty bedroom settled over me. Thank God, my wife is the strong one in our household. She helps me to keep it all in perspective.
Evan was never your typical teenager. He began piano lessons at the age of five, and developed an early love for classical music that continues today. The organ became his instrument of choice and he played his first Mass at the age of nine, following in the footsteps of my Aunt Agnes who was the organist at our local parish for 65 years. After her death, Uncle Joe gave her beautiful Conn organ to us. Our house was filled with music everyday. When Evan wasn't playing Bach on the organ, he would be playing Debussy or one of my other favorites on the century-old upright piano that was handed down through my wife's family. Now, they both sit silent in our downstairs family room.
The melancholy that surrounds me is soothed by the knowledge that Evan is pursuing his love of music. He will be home from time-to-time and I am sure the old piano and organ will come to life again. He seems to be excited about attending the university and appears to be adjusting well to his new surroundings. With Internet instant messaging and video technology, and the cellular telephone, kids are never really far away anymore. The world has become a much smaller place.
I have to keep reminding myself that these are not our children. They are God's children. We are just caretakers until they are ready to survive on their own. I don't want to demean the importance of that job, however. It is a tremendous responsibility, one that haunts me as my direct control over my son ends. Did I teach him everything a father needs to teach his son? Will he be ready to take responsibility, to do the right thing? When I am not there to lead, will he make the right choices?
The job of Parent had to be the most difficult in the world. It carries the most responsibility and yet, we begin it with no previous experience. Training is on-the-job, and by the time we gain the expertise, it's too late. Our career is over. Occasionally we see children who are raised from an early age by Grandparents. I wonder if they turn out to be more responsible adults since their guardians had prior experience. It might be an interesting study.
Would I do anything differently if I could raise my children all over again? Certainly, I would. Raising a child is somewhat like painting a picture. We make what we think are the proper brushstrokes to create our masterpiece, but we never really know how it will turn out until we step back to look. There are no assurances. I have seen parents seemingly do all the right things only to have kids grow up to be irresponsible jerks, and others who become wonderful adults despite being neglected while growing up. Perhaps the best we can do is act as we want our children to act. Lead by example, and hope they gain the necessary respect to follow in our footsteps.
I wish I had placed greater emphasis on getting priorities in order. Part of being a responsible adult is knowing what is important. I want my children to understand what a covenant is, and what it means in terms of commitment. I want them to love Our Lord, His Church, and all His creation. I want them to learn their faith and to share it with others. I want them to continue to grow through Grace and by personal study. I want them to be committed to family and to helping others. I want them to be civically and socially responsible. I want them to do the right thing, even in the face of opposition from our secular society.
Did I always do these things as an example for my children? No, not always. I am weak. But for the grace of God do I even have a wife and family. I have been very blessed. Are my children turning out the exactly the way I had hoped? Maybe not exactly, but I am mostly pleased and there are many chapters yet to be written. Despite what we tell them and how we lead, our children need to learn some things for themselves. At times their mistakes can be painful, but we cannot keep the reins on forever. We have to let go.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Please Accept My Apology
My dialogue continues with my non-Catholic friend. His last presentation to me was a list of 19th century Protestant Bible commentaries refuting Peter's primacy, the papacy, and its succession. I countered with a list of quotations from the early Church Fathers proving that the earliest Christians accepted Peter's primacy, his office and its continuity. My letter to him was a much revised version of what I posted last month. I re-read and re-wrote the text several times while making prudent use of my delete button before settling on the final form.
Such apologetic activity is a delicate procedure. How much is too much? My goal is to provoke thought, not anger. In some respects, dialogue with a friend is much more difficult than with a stranger. Friendships can be easily strained, and yet we have a responsibility to share the faith. The Bible says to do so with gentleness and reverence, which is not always easy to do. One's demeanor does not always come across accurately in printed form. Keeping that in mind is paramount.
Our exchanges average semi-monthly cycles. That gives each of us time to calm ourselves, ponder the issues, do research and formulate an answer. While some discussion is done via email, the past few have been in printed form through the U.S. Mail. The reason for this is primarily due to length. Emails twelve to fourteen pages long can be difficult to read. It seems rude to fill someone's mailbox with a large amount of text and then expect that person to print it on his or her own paper. Both of us agree that having the text in printed form is essential for serious study. It allows us to make notes as we read while eliminating the temptation to let the message get buried in an online mailbox.
This particular discussion began when Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ, debuted. We have remained on good terms despite the fact that we have firmly revealed our disagreements. Sometimes after sending an apologetic essay, I do sense some peevishness in my friend's initial reaction which usually comes via email. He will usually follow up with a friendly phone call in a day or two. Generally, the phone conversations consist of mostly small-talk, perhaps a mutual reassurance that everything is still okay between us.
Have these exchanges been fruitful? Yes. I'm not going to jump ship and he has shown no signs of coming onboard, but we both have gained insight into each other's faith. We share many common beliefs, and of course, we have many disagreements. My mission is to wipe away any misconceptions about the Catholic Church while presenting the faith in a logical and loving manner. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit.
My dialogue continues with my non-Catholic friend. His last presentation to me was a list of 19th century Protestant Bible commentaries refuting Peter's primacy, the papacy, and its succession. I countered with a list of quotations from the early Church Fathers proving that the earliest Christians accepted Peter's primacy, his office and its continuity. My letter to him was a much revised version of what I posted last month. I re-read and re-wrote the text several times while making prudent use of my delete button before settling on the final form.
Such apologetic activity is a delicate procedure. How much is too much? My goal is to provoke thought, not anger. In some respects, dialogue with a friend is much more difficult than with a stranger. Friendships can be easily strained, and yet we have a responsibility to share the faith. The Bible says to do so with gentleness and reverence, which is not always easy to do. One's demeanor does not always come across accurately in printed form. Keeping that in mind is paramount.
Our exchanges average semi-monthly cycles. That gives each of us time to calm ourselves, ponder the issues, do research and formulate an answer. While some discussion is done via email, the past few have been in printed form through the U.S. Mail. The reason for this is primarily due to length. Emails twelve to fourteen pages long can be difficult to read. It seems rude to fill someone's mailbox with a large amount of text and then expect that person to print it on his or her own paper. Both of us agree that having the text in printed form is essential for serious study. It allows us to make notes as we read while eliminating the temptation to let the message get buried in an online mailbox.
This particular discussion began when Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ, debuted. We have remained on good terms despite the fact that we have firmly revealed our disagreements. Sometimes after sending an apologetic essay, I do sense some peevishness in my friend's initial reaction which usually comes via email. He will usually follow up with a friendly phone call in a day or two. Generally, the phone conversations consist of mostly small-talk, perhaps a mutual reassurance that everything is still okay between us.
Have these exchanges been fruitful? Yes. I'm not going to jump ship and he has shown no signs of coming onboard, but we both have gained insight into each other's faith. We share many common beliefs, and of course, we have many disagreements. My mission is to wipe away any misconceptions about the Catholic Church while presenting the faith in a logical and loving manner. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Peter Rocks!
A close non-Catholic friend and I occasionally get into discussions about the Catholic faith. About a year ago, he asked me to look a booklet titled The Facts on Roman Catholicism by John Ankerberg and John Weldon. Ankerberg is a well-known Protestant Christian apologist who has a television ministry. Weldon is an author who collaborated with Ankerberg on a number of apologetic books.
A quick Internet search led me to Ankerberg's web page where I was able to purchase the 63-page booklet for five dollars. My friend expressed his preference for this tract because it presented the problems with Catholicism in a "charitable manner." I suspected I already knew basically what the booklet would say, but using it as a discussion tool seemed like a good way to further our dialogue.
As I read through the booklet, I began making notes and writing comments. Eventually, those gave birth to a 17 page reply to my friend in which I refuted all the half-truths and downright erroneous information contained in the booklet. Last week, my friend replied with a rather lengthy response of his own. It consisted of early 19th Century Protestant Scripture Commentaries by Adam Clarke and several others, most of which were directed at denying papal authority. My friend noted that these commentaries are well known and respected. What follows is a portion of my latest reply.
We can both present our evidence over and over again, but how do we get beyond this point in our discussion? We know we should be united in mind and purpose as the Bible tells us, but what happens when in all honesty and sincerity, we just disagree. How do we discern the truth? As a Catholic, I could look to Scripture and say we should take our disagreement to the Church (Matt 18: 15-18), because the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.(1 Tim 3:15) We still have a problem because we cannot agree on what Scripture means by the Church.
I'm sure Adam Clarke's Commentaries are "well known and respected" -- in Evangelical circles. The problem is that, as a Methodist writer, his commentaries always come from a Protestant point of view. That is to say, his interpretation of Scripture will never support a Catholic position with which he disagrees. For example, let's take 1 Tim 3:15 which I cited above. A Catholic would say this verse means exactly what it says. Paul is referring to "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." As Catholics, we believe Jesus, the Son of the living God, established an authoritative Church guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth (Matt 16: 13-19, John 16:13), and we can trace the Catholic Church to this origin. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. There is no mystery here. Since Clarke does not hold this position, he cannot interpret this passage literally, and must try to come up with other possibilities.
I found his commentary on 1 Tim 3:15 at http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1tim3.htm I display them here just as they appear on the webpage. Regarding to what the "pillar and ground of the truth" refers, he says the following:
[The pillar and ground of the truth.] Never was there a greater variety of opinions on any portion of the sacred Scripture than has been on this and the following verse. Commentators and critics have given senses and meanings till there is no meaning to be seen. It would be almost impossible, after reading all that has been said on this passage, for any man to make up his own mind. To what, or to whom, does the pillar and ground of the truth refer?
1. Some say to Timothy, who is called the pillar, &c., because left there to support and defend the truth of God against false doctrines and false teachers; and is so called for the same reason that Peter, James, and John, are said to be pillars, i.e. supporters of the truth of God. Gal. ii. 9.
2. Others suppose that the pillar and ground of the truth is spoken of GOD; and that ov esti, who is, should be supplied as referring immediately to qeov, God, just before. By this mode of interpretation the passage will read thus: That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, WHO IS (ov esti) the pillar and ground of the truth. How God may be fitly termed the pillar and ground of truth, requires no explanation.
3. Others think that the words should be understood of the CHURCH of the living God; and in this case the feminine relative htiv esti, which is, must be repeated immediately after ekklhsia, the Church. The house of God is the Church of the living God; WHICH (Church) IS the pillar and ground of the truth. That is: The full revelation of God's truth is in the Christian Church. The great doctrines of that Church are the truth without error, metaphor, or figure. Formerly the truth was but partially revealed, much of it being shadowed with types, ceremonies, and comparatively dark prophecies; but now all is plain, and the full revelation given; and the foundation on which this truth rests are the grand facts detailed in the Gospel, especially those which concern the incarnation, miracles, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ, and the mission of the Holy Spirit.
4. Lastly, others refer the whole to to thv eusebeiav musthrion, the mystery of godliness; and translate the clause thus: The mystery of godliness is the pillar and ground of the truth; and, without controversy, a great thing. This gives a very good sense, but it is not much favoured by the arrangement of the words in the original.
The term Eisegesis refers to Biblical interpretation that is formed in accordance with preconceived beliefs, as opposed to Exegesis, the theological study of the true meaning of Scripture. Imagine how difficult it must be to form a Biblical interpretation without allowing one's personal beliefs to enter. I read all of the commentaries on Matthew 16 that you provided. I think any reasonable critic will see some eisegesis in the exegesis. It's a bit like having a little broken glass mixed in with your peanut butter. There may be spiritual nourishment here, but one must chew it carefully.
In all fairness, were I to try to write on Matthew 16, my commentary would be biased also, but not soley based on my own personal discernment. I have no Divinely-granted authority to speak for Jesus, but neither do these commentators. What they provide is their private interpretation. We know, however, that Jesus did give SOMEBODY the power to bind and loose in His absence. Those standing in opposition to that authority need to justify their position, and having already rejected the authority and the historical Tradition, these commentators have only their personal interpretation of Scripture to fall back on. That is a pretty safe place to be because they have no one to answer to but themselves.
The commentaries by Clarke, Matthew Henry, and Jamieson Fausset and Brown are all formed to deny any indication of Peter being the first prime minister of a singular, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Not only do they express their beliefs of what Matthew 16:18 means, they go out of their way to say what it does not mean, an admission of the commentary's Catholic target. Regarding the possibility of Peter being the Rock on which the Church was founded, Henry says, "Yet if it were so, this would not serve to support the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome; for Peter had no such headship as he claims, much less could he derive it to his successors, least of all to the Bishops of Rome, who, whether they are so in place or no, is a question, but that they are not so in the truth of Christianity, is past all question." Clarke says, "That Peter is not designed in our Lord's words must be evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice."
I ask, who here is REALLY blinded by prejudice and how can we know? What evidence do we have that Peter DID have headship, that he was the first Pope, and that there WERE successors? Most of the cited Protestant commentaries come from the 18th or 19th century when anti-catholic sentiment was running high. Why not look at commentaries from the first few centuries of Christianity written by those closest to the events of the day?
At this point, I cited excerpts from a number of early Christian writings. They date from as early as 170 A.D. to the 5th century, more than 1000 years before Luther. I divided them into three groups corresponding to the three objections mentioned above, those being that Peter had no primacy over the other disciples, that he was not the Rock on which the Church was founded by Christ, and lastly that Peter's headship was not passed on to successors. I won't list all of them here. They are too numerous. All of these quotations can be found at http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
What do these writings prove? They refute the contention that the Catholic Church somehow usurped power at a later time. They show the earliest Christians acknowledged the chair of Peter and his successors, in direct contrast to the contentions of the commentaries written some 1400 years later. They show earliest Christians were Catholic.
A close non-Catholic friend and I occasionally get into discussions about the Catholic faith. About a year ago, he asked me to look a booklet titled The Facts on Roman Catholicism by John Ankerberg and John Weldon. Ankerberg is a well-known Protestant Christian apologist who has a television ministry. Weldon is an author who collaborated with Ankerberg on a number of apologetic books.
A quick Internet search led me to Ankerberg's web page where I was able to purchase the 63-page booklet for five dollars. My friend expressed his preference for this tract because it presented the problems with Catholicism in a "charitable manner." I suspected I already knew basically what the booklet would say, but using it as a discussion tool seemed like a good way to further our dialogue.
As I read through the booklet, I began making notes and writing comments. Eventually, those gave birth to a 17 page reply to my friend in which I refuted all the half-truths and downright erroneous information contained in the booklet. Last week, my friend replied with a rather lengthy response of his own. It consisted of early 19th Century Protestant Scripture Commentaries by Adam Clarke and several others, most of which were directed at denying papal authority. My friend noted that these commentaries are well known and respected. What follows is a portion of my latest reply.
We can both present our evidence over and over again, but how do we get beyond this point in our discussion? We know we should be united in mind and purpose as the Bible tells us, but what happens when in all honesty and sincerity, we just disagree. How do we discern the truth? As a Catholic, I could look to Scripture and say we should take our disagreement to the Church (Matt 18: 15-18), because the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.(1 Tim 3:15) We still have a problem because we cannot agree on what Scripture means by the Church.
I'm sure Adam Clarke's Commentaries are "well known and respected" -- in Evangelical circles. The problem is that, as a Methodist writer, his commentaries always come from a Protestant point of view. That is to say, his interpretation of Scripture will never support a Catholic position with which he disagrees. For example, let's take 1 Tim 3:15 which I cited above. A Catholic would say this verse means exactly what it says. Paul is referring to "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." As Catholics, we believe Jesus, the Son of the living God, established an authoritative Church guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth (Matt 16: 13-19, John 16:13), and we can trace the Catholic Church to this origin. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. There is no mystery here. Since Clarke does not hold this position, he cannot interpret this passage literally, and must try to come up with other possibilities.
I found his commentary on 1 Tim 3:15 at http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1tim3.htm I display them here just as they appear on the webpage. Regarding to what the "pillar and ground of the truth" refers, he says the following:
[The pillar and ground of the truth.] Never was there a greater variety of opinions on any portion of the sacred Scripture than has been on this and the following verse. Commentators and critics have given senses and meanings till there is no meaning to be seen. It would be almost impossible, after reading all that has been said on this passage, for any man to make up his own mind. To what, or to whom, does the pillar and ground of the truth refer?
1. Some say to Timothy, who is called the pillar, &c., because left there to support and defend the truth of God against false doctrines and false teachers; and is so called for the same reason that Peter, James, and John, are said to be pillars, i.e. supporters of the truth of God. Gal. ii. 9.
2. Others suppose that the pillar and ground of the truth is spoken of GOD; and that ov esti, who is, should be supplied as referring immediately to qeov, God, just before. By this mode of interpretation the passage will read thus: That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, WHO IS (ov esti) the pillar and ground of the truth. How God may be fitly termed the pillar and ground of truth, requires no explanation.
3. Others think that the words should be understood of the CHURCH of the living God; and in this case the feminine relative htiv esti, which is, must be repeated immediately after ekklhsia, the Church. The house of God is the Church of the living God; WHICH (Church) IS the pillar and ground of the truth. That is: The full revelation of God's truth is in the Christian Church. The great doctrines of that Church are the truth without error, metaphor, or figure. Formerly the truth was but partially revealed, much of it being shadowed with types, ceremonies, and comparatively dark prophecies; but now all is plain, and the full revelation given; and the foundation on which this truth rests are the grand facts detailed in the Gospel, especially those which concern the incarnation, miracles, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ, and the mission of the Holy Spirit.
4. Lastly, others refer the whole to to thv eusebeiav musthrion, the mystery of godliness; and translate the clause thus: The mystery of godliness is the pillar and ground of the truth; and, without controversy, a great thing. This gives a very good sense, but it is not much favoured by the arrangement of the words in the original.
The term Eisegesis refers to Biblical interpretation that is formed in accordance with preconceived beliefs, as opposed to Exegesis, the theological study of the true meaning of Scripture. Imagine how difficult it must be to form a Biblical interpretation without allowing one's personal beliefs to enter. I read all of the commentaries on Matthew 16 that you provided. I think any reasonable critic will see some eisegesis in the exegesis. It's a bit like having a little broken glass mixed in with your peanut butter. There may be spiritual nourishment here, but one must chew it carefully.
In all fairness, were I to try to write on Matthew 16, my commentary would be biased also, but not soley based on my own personal discernment. I have no Divinely-granted authority to speak for Jesus, but neither do these commentators. What they provide is their private interpretation. We know, however, that Jesus did give SOMEBODY the power to bind and loose in His absence. Those standing in opposition to that authority need to justify their position, and having already rejected the authority and the historical Tradition, these commentators have only their personal interpretation of Scripture to fall back on. That is a pretty safe place to be because they have no one to answer to but themselves.
The commentaries by Clarke, Matthew Henry, and Jamieson Fausset and Brown are all formed to deny any indication of Peter being the first prime minister of a singular, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Not only do they express their beliefs of what Matthew 16:18 means, they go out of their way to say what it does not mean, an admission of the commentary's Catholic target. Regarding the possibility of Peter being the Rock on which the Church was founded, Henry says, "Yet if it were so, this would not serve to support the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome; for Peter had no such headship as he claims, much less could he derive it to his successors, least of all to the Bishops of Rome, who, whether they are so in place or no, is a question, but that they are not so in the truth of Christianity, is past all question." Clarke says, "That Peter is not designed in our Lord's words must be evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice."
I ask, who here is REALLY blinded by prejudice and how can we know? What evidence do we have that Peter DID have headship, that he was the first Pope, and that there WERE successors? Most of the cited Protestant commentaries come from the 18th or 19th century when anti-catholic sentiment was running high. Why not look at commentaries from the first few centuries of Christianity written by those closest to the events of the day?
At this point, I cited excerpts from a number of early Christian writings. They date from as early as 170 A.D. to the 5th century, more than 1000 years before Luther. I divided them into three groups corresponding to the three objections mentioned above, those being that Peter had no primacy over the other disciples, that he was not the Rock on which the Church was founded by Christ, and lastly that Peter's headship was not passed on to successors. I won't list all of them here. They are too numerous. All of these quotations can be found at http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
What do these writings prove? They refute the contention that the Catholic Church somehow usurped power at a later time. They show the earliest Christians acknowledged the chair of Peter and his successors, in direct contrast to the contentions of the commentaries written some 1400 years later. They show earliest Christians were Catholic.
Monday, May 29, 2006
May another take his office
In my more than fifty-five years on this earth, I had never attended a Protestant Sunday service until today. My son, who was hired to be the organist at St. Luke United Church of Christ several years ago, will be graduating from high school this week. The congregation graciously wanted to make a presentation to him at their Sunday service, and their pastor invited us to attend.
Evan played his first Mass almost nine years ago to the day. It was Memorial Day, 1997. He was 9 years old at the time. He began taking lessons when he was five from the wife of a Lutheran minister. It seemed to come almost easy to him, and by the time he entered high school, he was a regular organist at our Catholic parish, and even directed the adult choir. All of this was done in service to the Church, so Evan would never take money for his work. Being a teenager in need of spending money, he jumped at the opportunity to make $50 per week for playing the organ at the nearby Protestant service, while continuing to play the Saturday evening Mass at our parish. Allowing him to play for a non-Catholic congregation was never an issue for us. He has become firmly ensconced in his Catholic faith, very knowledgeable for someone his age.
The people at St. Luke United Church of Christ were very friendly. We were greeted at the door by a couple of members of the congregation and their pastor. Living in a small community, we knew a few of them. They welcomed us and we felt comfortable.
The service began with the pastor at the ambo where he made a few announcements and then asked the congregation for "joys and concerns". A number of people got up to request prayers for certain friends and family members. One expressed joy at her daughter finding a job, and another man thanked God for helping him discern which job he should take. The pastor took notes and worked these joys and concerns into prayers near the end of the service where he mentioned each of the petitioners by name. It was also at this time that the presentation was made to my son.
Following the introductory prayers and an opening hymn (America, in recognition of Memorial Day), the congregation sang something similar to our Gloria. There was a "Litany for Memorial Day", another hymn (Battle Hymn of the Republic), followed by Psalm 33 and a reading from Acts 1:15-26, which became the topic for the sermon.
The reading from Acts and the sermon were of particular interest to me. We would have read that same passage from Luke's second volume had we not celebrated the Feast of the Ascension this Sunday in our diocese. It tells of the process of choosing a successor to Judas. The proceedings are lead by Peter who stood before the assembly of about 120 to express the need for filling the vacant office. Two candidates were presented and after praying for guidance, they cast lots whereby Matthias was chosen to be counted with the remaining eleven.
The pastor talked about the importance of filling that office vacated by Judas. He said the eleven probably could have continued to serve those 120 people, but that it was necessary to fill the office and all Christianity eventually spread from that ministry. As Catholics, we often cite this passage to support our belief in the existence of Apostolic Succession. Our Catholic priests and bishops of today can trace their lineage to those original twelve. We know from Scripture that Jesus promised to establish a Church, with Peter holding the keys to the kingdom. Jesus gave all twelve apostles the authority to bind and loose, and here in Acts, we see that office being passed down.
When Christians separate themselves from the authorized line of succession, they can no longer be assured of the truth. Hence we have thousands of Protestant denominations, each teaching their own interpretation of Scripture. Anyone who disagrees with this pastor's sermon can go down the street and find another pastor who teaches something more palatable.
I would like to question the pastor on the events depicted in Acts 1:15-26. If these twelve men were given the authority to bind and loose (Matt 18:18), and that authority was passed on as we see here, who holds that authority now? If the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church as we learn in 1 Tim 3:15, is it not important that we remain under the safe harbor of that Christ-given authority? In view of the lack of Christian unity we experience today, does he ever consider the possibility that many have rejected this Christ-given authority if favor of self-rule through personal interpretation?
In a discussion I was reading this week, someone asked why Protestants do not see the big picture? One person pointed out the tendency to take Scripture one passage at a time in order to prove a certain point. Another used the term cognitive dissonance to describe the ability to see what supports one's belief while ignoring that which does not. When one answers to no particular authority other than his own congregation, he is certainly free to preach whatever he believes and avoid anything which may be in opposition.
Following the sermon, the offering was collected. Up to this point, I was somewhat surprised how closely the service resembled the Liturgy of the Word in our Catholic Mass. The pastor apparently follows our Lectionary, as many Protestant denominations do, even though he omitted the seconded reading and the gospel. Were we in a Catholic Church, we would now begin the most important part of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Eucharist, where we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Here in St. Luke United Church of Christ, what followed was the Closing Hymn. You see, outside the line of Apostolic Succession, there is no priesthood, and therefore, no valid consecration.
We departed the church amid handshakes and warm wishes from many members of their congregation. There is no doubt that they love Jesus and one another. In many respects, I wish our own Catholic congregation could express the warmth and friendliness we witnessed today. Despite all these good feelings, there was something very important missing. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. (John 6:53) My prayer is that one day they can be reunited with us in the fullness of the faith.
In my more than fifty-five years on this earth, I had never attended a Protestant Sunday service until today. My son, who was hired to be the organist at St. Luke United Church of Christ several years ago, will be graduating from high school this week. The congregation graciously wanted to make a presentation to him at their Sunday service, and their pastor invited us to attend.
Evan played his first Mass almost nine years ago to the day. It was Memorial Day, 1997. He was 9 years old at the time. He began taking lessons when he was five from the wife of a Lutheran minister. It seemed to come almost easy to him, and by the time he entered high school, he was a regular organist at our Catholic parish, and even directed the adult choir. All of this was done in service to the Church, so Evan would never take money for his work. Being a teenager in need of spending money, he jumped at the opportunity to make $50 per week for playing the organ at the nearby Protestant service, while continuing to play the Saturday evening Mass at our parish. Allowing him to play for a non-Catholic congregation was never an issue for us. He has become firmly ensconced in his Catholic faith, very knowledgeable for someone his age.
The people at St. Luke United Church of Christ were very friendly. We were greeted at the door by a couple of members of the congregation and their pastor. Living in a small community, we knew a few of them. They welcomed us and we felt comfortable.
The service began with the pastor at the ambo where he made a few announcements and then asked the congregation for "joys and concerns". A number of people got up to request prayers for certain friends and family members. One expressed joy at her daughter finding a job, and another man thanked God for helping him discern which job he should take. The pastor took notes and worked these joys and concerns into prayers near the end of the service where he mentioned each of the petitioners by name. It was also at this time that the presentation was made to my son.
Following the introductory prayers and an opening hymn (America, in recognition of Memorial Day), the congregation sang something similar to our Gloria. There was a "Litany for Memorial Day", another hymn (Battle Hymn of the Republic), followed by Psalm 33 and a reading from Acts 1:15-26, which became the topic for the sermon.
The reading from Acts and the sermon were of particular interest to me. We would have read that same passage from Luke's second volume had we not celebrated the Feast of the Ascension this Sunday in our diocese. It tells of the process of choosing a successor to Judas. The proceedings are lead by Peter who stood before the assembly of about 120 to express the need for filling the vacant office. Two candidates were presented and after praying for guidance, they cast lots whereby Matthias was chosen to be counted with the remaining eleven.
The pastor talked about the importance of filling that office vacated by Judas. He said the eleven probably could have continued to serve those 120 people, but that it was necessary to fill the office and all Christianity eventually spread from that ministry. As Catholics, we often cite this passage to support our belief in the existence of Apostolic Succession. Our Catholic priests and bishops of today can trace their lineage to those original twelve. We know from Scripture that Jesus promised to establish a Church, with Peter holding the keys to the kingdom. Jesus gave all twelve apostles the authority to bind and loose, and here in Acts, we see that office being passed down.
When Christians separate themselves from the authorized line of succession, they can no longer be assured of the truth. Hence we have thousands of Protestant denominations, each teaching their own interpretation of Scripture. Anyone who disagrees with this pastor's sermon can go down the street and find another pastor who teaches something more palatable.
I would like to question the pastor on the events depicted in Acts 1:15-26. If these twelve men were given the authority to bind and loose (Matt 18:18), and that authority was passed on as we see here, who holds that authority now? If the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church as we learn in 1 Tim 3:15, is it not important that we remain under the safe harbor of that Christ-given authority? In view of the lack of Christian unity we experience today, does he ever consider the possibility that many have rejected this Christ-given authority if favor of self-rule through personal interpretation?
In a discussion I was reading this week, someone asked why Protestants do not see the big picture? One person pointed out the tendency to take Scripture one passage at a time in order to prove a certain point. Another used the term cognitive dissonance to describe the ability to see what supports one's belief while ignoring that which does not. When one answers to no particular authority other than his own congregation, he is certainly free to preach whatever he believes and avoid anything which may be in opposition.
Following the sermon, the offering was collected. Up to this point, I was somewhat surprised how closely the service resembled the Liturgy of the Word in our Catholic Mass. The pastor apparently follows our Lectionary, as many Protestant denominations do, even though he omitted the seconded reading and the gospel. Were we in a Catholic Church, we would now begin the most important part of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Eucharist, where we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Here in St. Luke United Church of Christ, what followed was the Closing Hymn. You see, outside the line of Apostolic Succession, there is no priesthood, and therefore, no valid consecration.
We departed the church amid handshakes and warm wishes from many members of their congregation. There is no doubt that they love Jesus and one another. In many respects, I wish our own Catholic congregation could express the warmth and friendliness we witnessed today. Despite all these good feelings, there was something very important missing. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. (John 6:53) My prayer is that one day they can be reunited with us in the fullness of the faith.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Fire the Canons!
Our Sunday bulletin for March 12, 2006 contained the following announcement:
Welcoming 125th Anniversary Witness Reflections:
(Parishioner's Name) will be speaking at all Masses this weekend as he will be sharing heart warming reflections on our Parish's 125th Jubilee Year.
We welcome (Name) to share with us stories during the "homily time" just as we would welcome other laity or ordained when they share with us stories as to what is happening in their field of mission work. In fact, the Code of Canon Law does make allowances for the laity to homilize as it states in Canon 766: "Lay persons can be admitted to preach in a church or oratory if it is necessary in certain circumstances or if it is useful in particular cases according to the prescriptions of the conferences of bishops & with due regard for can. 767, #1." Therefore, on behalf of the 125th Anniversary Committee it is with open hearts we welcome (Name) for the "particular circumstance" as our speaker this weekend as he reflects on faith stories pertaining to our Jubilee Year!
Indeed one of our parishioners delivered his talk in the place of the homily at all of Sunday Masses. A few of us in attendance who have some basic knowledge of Canon Law and also the General Instruction of the Roman Missal were puzzled. I was under the impression that homilies were restricted to priests or deacons. The answer lies in Canon Law 767, #1 to which the bulletin entry makes reference, but does not include. It says the following:
Can. 767 #1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.
It seems the "due regard for can. 767, #1" was disregarded by our pastor. He tends to take Church documents out of context in order to do justify his actions, much like some people quote Scripture out of context in order to support their own self-serving doctrines. Does he not understand or does he not care? Frankly, I am surprised he cited Canon Law at all. Perhaps he knew some would be upset that a member of the laity would be delivering a homily and thought he could fire a pre-emptive shot by finding legal support for lay preaching. It would also behoove him to read canon 767 in its entirely. Line #4 says: It is for the pastor or rector of a church to take care that these prescripts are observed conscientiously.
Our Sunday bulletin for March 12, 2006 contained the following announcement:
Welcoming 125th Anniversary Witness Reflections:
(Parishioner's Name) will be speaking at all Masses this weekend as he will be sharing heart warming reflections on our Parish's 125th Jubilee Year.
We welcome (Name) to share with us stories during the "homily time" just as we would welcome other laity or ordained when they share with us stories as to what is happening in their field of mission work. In fact, the Code of Canon Law does make allowances for the laity to homilize as it states in Canon 766: "Lay persons can be admitted to preach in a church or oratory if it is necessary in certain circumstances or if it is useful in particular cases according to the prescriptions of the conferences of bishops & with due regard for can. 767, #1." Therefore, on behalf of the 125th Anniversary Committee it is with open hearts we welcome (Name) for the "particular circumstance" as our speaker this weekend as he reflects on faith stories pertaining to our Jubilee Year!
Indeed one of our parishioners delivered his talk in the place of the homily at all of Sunday Masses. A few of us in attendance who have some basic knowledge of Canon Law and also the General Instruction of the Roman Missal were puzzled. I was under the impression that homilies were restricted to priests or deacons. The answer lies in Canon Law 767, #1 to which the bulletin entry makes reference, but does not include. It says the following:
Can. 767 #1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.
It seems the "due regard for can. 767, #1" was disregarded by our pastor. He tends to take Church documents out of context in order to do justify his actions, much like some people quote Scripture out of context in order to support their own self-serving doctrines. Does he not understand or does he not care? Frankly, I am surprised he cited Canon Law at all. Perhaps he knew some would be upset that a member of the laity would be delivering a homily and thought he could fire a pre-emptive shot by finding legal support for lay preaching. It would also behoove him to read canon 767 in its entirely. Line #4 says: It is for the pastor or rector of a church to take care that these prescripts are observed conscientiously.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Latin, RIGHT!
Someone posted a question on Steve Ray's message board about what we should call ourselves. Are we simply Catholic or are we Roman Catholic? Which term describes us best? Many expressed concern about the origin of term "Roman" Catholic, saying it arose as a slur by the English who separated from the true Church. Others pointed out the Church herself uses Roman Catholic in various documents. Some said "Catholic" says it all. And still others felt the need to be more specific by saying "Catholic, Latin Rite". One clever individual said we are actually the First Apostolic Full Gospel Church of Jesus Christ Unreformed, Roman Assembly.
All of this has nothing to do with my topic here, other than the fact it gave me the idea for my title. Last Friday evening as my family perused a restaurant menu looking for meatless dishes to comply with our Lenten abstinence, my son wondered why it is okay to eat fish on Friday when many consider fish to be meat. He got this question from one of his high school buddies and could not provide an adequate reply. I was stumped also but I knew there must be a reasonable answer, and I found one courtesy of Jimmy Akin's web page. (http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/fish_fridays.html)
All Church law is written in Latin. On Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent, we are required to abstain from eating carnis, which we translate as meat in English. In Latin, carnis literally means a land-dwelling, warm-blooded animal. Fish are neither land-dwelling nor warm-blooded, so they are not considered carnis. All carnis is meat, but not all meat is carnis. Therefore, under Church law, it is acceptable to eat fish on days of abstinence even if one considers fish to be meat.
To remain closest to our Catholic roots, we need to understand Latin. Vernacular translations employ dynamic equivalence, meaning the literal language is modified to convey the thought in wording more easily understood. This is okay, but it requires passing the text through the eyes and mind of the translator for interpretation. The resulting text has been filtered by the views of the interpreter, and therefore is no longer seen in its most pristine original form. Hymn translations are subjected to even greater alteration since words are sometimes changed to fit the music or to make it rhyme.
In the carnis example, there is no common English word that means warm-blooded, land-dwelling animal. The translators chose the word meat. It is close enough to convey the intent of the law, but not literally exact. All translations require substitution of words and ideas which may not have literal equivalents. To dynamically translate an idea correctly, the translator must correctly interpret what the author was thinking, and choose words that convey that idea as closely as possible. Subtle differences are inevitable. As writer James Kilpatrick once pointed out, the English language allows us to measure meaning by the micrometer.
Today, some forty years after Vatican II, we are still awaiting a good translation of the Latin Mass. The Vatican wants all translations to follow literally from the Latin. The International Commission on English in the Liturgy, a committee of English-speaking Bishops, has been working on a revised Lectionary for several years. They are still finding it difficult reach a consensus.
This is why so many conservative Catholics love the Latin Mass. Latin expresses Catholicism in its purest form, a form universal (i.e. catholic) to the Church in its fullness or entirety. It's our faith expressed free of another's interpretation. We may not understand every word, but we know it is original in its pristine form, and it is right.
Someone posted a question on Steve Ray's message board about what we should call ourselves. Are we simply Catholic or are we Roman Catholic? Which term describes us best? Many expressed concern about the origin of term "Roman" Catholic, saying it arose as a slur by the English who separated from the true Church. Others pointed out the Church herself uses Roman Catholic in various documents. Some said "Catholic" says it all. And still others felt the need to be more specific by saying "Catholic, Latin Rite". One clever individual said we are actually the First Apostolic Full Gospel Church of Jesus Christ Unreformed, Roman Assembly.
All of this has nothing to do with my topic here, other than the fact it gave me the idea for my title. Last Friday evening as my family perused a restaurant menu looking for meatless dishes to comply with our Lenten abstinence, my son wondered why it is okay to eat fish on Friday when many consider fish to be meat. He got this question from one of his high school buddies and could not provide an adequate reply. I was stumped also but I knew there must be a reasonable answer, and I found one courtesy of Jimmy Akin's web page. (http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/fish_fridays.html)
All Church law is written in Latin. On Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent, we are required to abstain from eating carnis, which we translate as meat in English. In Latin, carnis literally means a land-dwelling, warm-blooded animal. Fish are neither land-dwelling nor warm-blooded, so they are not considered carnis. All carnis is meat, but not all meat is carnis. Therefore, under Church law, it is acceptable to eat fish on days of abstinence even if one considers fish to be meat.
To remain closest to our Catholic roots, we need to understand Latin. Vernacular translations employ dynamic equivalence, meaning the literal language is modified to convey the thought in wording more easily understood. This is okay, but it requires passing the text through the eyes and mind of the translator for interpretation. The resulting text has been filtered by the views of the interpreter, and therefore is no longer seen in its most pristine original form. Hymn translations are subjected to even greater alteration since words are sometimes changed to fit the music or to make it rhyme.
In the carnis example, there is no common English word that means warm-blooded, land-dwelling animal. The translators chose the word meat. It is close enough to convey the intent of the law, but not literally exact. All translations require substitution of words and ideas which may not have literal equivalents. To dynamically translate an idea correctly, the translator must correctly interpret what the author was thinking, and choose words that convey that idea as closely as possible. Subtle differences are inevitable. As writer James Kilpatrick once pointed out, the English language allows us to measure meaning by the micrometer.
Today, some forty years after Vatican II, we are still awaiting a good translation of the Latin Mass. The Vatican wants all translations to follow literally from the Latin. The International Commission on English in the Liturgy, a committee of English-speaking Bishops, has been working on a revised Lectionary for several years. They are still finding it difficult reach a consensus.
This is why so many conservative Catholics love the Latin Mass. Latin expresses Catholicism in its purest form, a form universal (i.e. catholic) to the Church in its fullness or entirety. It's our faith expressed free of another's interpretation. We may not understand every word, but we know it is original in its pristine form, and it is right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)