tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post4153197715418595935..comments2023-04-02T07:03:21.099-05:00Comments on Principium Unitatis: Choosing My TraditionBryan Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-61007818729157713332008-09-09T08:10:00.000-05:002008-09-09T08:10:00.000-05:00Unlike many of your other arguments, your form / m...Unlike many of your other arguments, your form / matter one is actually pretty decent. Well, it's decent if we allow you to assume that (1) "Protestants," generically speaking, are not interested in matter and that (2) Catholics are primarily interested in matter. <BR/><BR/>Both of these assumptions are fraught with difficulties. Catholics are not primarily interested in matter, or even in a form-matter composite. You are speaking as if all Catholics are Aristotelians, but this has certainly not been the case throughout history. Much of papal argumentation during the Middle Ages was heavily dependent on Platonism, and many papalists preferred to constantly ignore the material conditions of culture in favor of their axioms about the (papal) Forms hovering above all the material conditions and to which the material conditions had to conform if they were to be intelligible. Catholic reliance on Aristotle is still comparatively "new" in terms of the fact that Platonism ruled Christian discourse from early times, and at any rate, it's difficult to separate the received Aristotelianism from Platonic elements. In other words, your account of Catholic interest in matter is too simplistic.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, Protestants are very interested in matter, just not in the same way Catholics are. Even the most radically low-church, anti-creedal type Protestant (say, a Pentecostal) can't get away from either his body, the bodies of his fellows, or the command and need to assemble bodily to fellowship. Even someone who thinks religion is primarily "spiritual" in terms of a direct connection to the Holy Spirit via say, speaking in tongues, is forced to use his body to speak in tongues.<BR/><BR/>But beyond this sort of inescapability of matter, all other Protestant traditions practice baptism and the Lord's Supper, both bodily ceremonies involving matter. They don't think of these ceremonies the way Catholics do, but they are nevertheless expressing the Christian religion materially. <BR/><BR/>This is not to mention that even the most radically "Bible-Only" person has to have constant recourse to a physical Bible passed down to him through quite physical means. Both here and in Protestant sacraments there is an inescapable element of physicality and material transmission, not least of which in terms of a physical, incarnated community of faith. This community of faith doesn't look like the Catholic one, but at this point your rhetoric devolves into simplistic apologetic slogans about "the Church that Christ founded" - all of which are quite challengeable on biblical and on historical grounds.<BR/><BR/>So your basic assumption that Protestants aren't interested in matter but Catholics are is false, or at least, relies on your own Catholic assumptions about the proper "form-matter composite." You're allowed to make those assumptions, of course, but at the same time you need to be able to defend them and not present yourself as an informed critic of Protestants while yet not taking into account such considerations as I've outlined above.Tim Enloehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00496999199258689044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-39893640996612017912008-09-05T21:23:00.000-05:002008-09-05T21:23:00.000-05:00Brian,Thank you for both of your responses. You ha...Brian,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for both of your responses. You have handled me with care and respect, and for that I am grateful.<BR/><BR/>I certainly hope those questions didn't set you off in any way. I ask what I ask out of a real desire to understand. Which you help me to do.<BR/><BR/>I never would have thought of the parallel between my comment and Judas comment to Jesus. Mainly, because I do not have that full understanding of seeing the Bishops the way that St. Ignatius spoke of them. I actually need to get back to St. Ignatius... I left him hanging on his road to martyrdom.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again, I appreciate the excellent answers, which when I slip on my Catholic Bifocals, make perfect sense... who knows if I will get a permanent proscription?<BR/><BR/>May the Lord bless you and keep you. BTW- I love that you went to the Monastery, that must have been an exceptional experience!<BR/><BR/>-g-George Weishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07632714882132276803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-21365031820972782842008-09-05T16:31:00.000-05:002008-09-05T16:31:00.000-05:00George,Let me address your other concern: the "lav...George,<BR/><BR/>Let me address your other concern: the "lavish lifestyles of the Roman bishops". I can't speak for the other bishops, because I don't know how they live. But I have some familiarity with the way in which the two Catholic bishops in the St. Louis archdiocese, Archbishop Burke and Bishop Herman live. These are men who have given up their lives to serve Christ by serving His Church. We (Catholics) want to honor Christ by treating our bishops right, i.e. making sure that they are well-taken care of. Archbishop Burke had a driver, but the car he was driven around in was a Buick. And while he was being driven, his usual custom was to pray the rosary silently in the backseat. The bishop's residence had a cook. Of course the bishop has no possessions. He has no house of his own, no car of his own, no bank account with his own money. What he uses is what we (the people) gladly offer to him as to Christ. I have eaten in the rectory with Bishop Herman, where he has his meals. I have met his cook; she cooks for the bishop and the other priests who serve at the Cathedral. She seems to be a very nice person. I don't think she's a professional cook; she seems more like a grandmother who makes great homemade meals. These are good meals; I'd be thankful to receive them daily. But they are not 5 star meals by any stretch.<BR/><BR/>Could the bishops live in a much simpler way, and could this extra money go to help the poor? Sure. But let's recall that this was also the mentality of Judas Iscariot. (Matt 26:9; Mark 14:5; John 12:5) Jesus responded to Judas' complaint by recognizing the propriety of the seeming wastefulness of anointing Jesus' feet with this expensive perfume. It was an act of worship on Mary's part. Similarly, the Church seeks to honor her bishops, by ensuring that they are fed well and have suitable (though not lavish) shelter and transportation for the tasks that they do in shepherding Christ's Church. Jesus' response to Judas shows that pragmatism is not the governing philosophy of ecclesial budgeting. What Mary Magdelene did to Jesus' feet provides a divinely approved example to us, that shows the propriety of making great works of art, music and architecture that transcend the merely useful. The Church is the Body of Christ, and therefore the Church should be treated as such, as something upon which to empty our jars of nard, in worship of Christ. If doing it unto the least of these is doing it unto Christ, then how should we treat the bishops who are appointed by Christ and stand in His place as shepherds for us until Christ returns? If you want to get a feel for this, read what St. Ignatius of Antioch says <A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/08/st-ignatius-of-antioch-on-church.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> about how we should reverence the bishops.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-68797717700025795542008-09-05T16:12:00.000-05:002008-09-05T16:12:00.000-05:00Bryan,The pastor you quoted said, "The point I wan...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>The pastor you quoted said, "The point I want to make by this is that, in becoming Reformed, I did not do the work of a biblicist. I had to submit myself humbly to the wisdom of those artists and archers that had gone before me."<BR/><BR/>I am inclined to reply with the same thought I am attempting to convey to Pastor Stellman at De Regno Dubous right now. What about his truth-discerning process led him to the conclusion that "those [Reformed] artists" "that had gone before" held the truth? Particularly, it strikes me that one can be persuaded that the "artist" (theologian) in question either has superior intellect to his marketplace competitors, or he has superior grace from the Holy Spirit. I mean, it seems we're either saying, "I really believe God's active work is with this group, so I'll go with what He leads them to teach, for unity", or "I really believe this group has people with superior minds, so I'll go with their collective view , for unity". Divine authority, or intellectual authority? If the Confessional Reformed reply that theirs is divine authority (i.e., that they are divinely led to the correct interpretive norms), it seems that they have to assert that divine graces have worked through the intellectual processes, not through sacramental ones (and either way, a tu quoque results).<BR/><BR/>Peace in Christ,<BR/>TomTom B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08014927666068877364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-33610453707967101802008-09-05T08:27:00.000-05:002008-09-05T08:27:00.000-05:00Hello George,Thanks for your comments. I'm glad th...Hello George,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments. I'm glad that they have been helpful to you in thinking about these things.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your question, "Is that unity simply LOVE", do we not believe that if a man truly loves a woman, he proposes to her, to bind himself exclusively to her for life, in the institution of marriage? Of course people can marry for reasons other than love. But my point is that true love is most poignantly expressed through a formal institution. This is why the notion of 'free love' (more common back in the 60s and 70s) was a diminished conception of love. That's not true love. True love is willing to vow, publicly, to bind itself for better or worse, sickness and health, hell and high water, till death, the whole shabang. So institutional unity need not be seen as superfluous to the expression of love, but can be seen as making possible the perfection of the expression of love.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-66809494287885651252008-09-05T07:36:00.000-05:002008-09-05T07:36:00.000-05:00Brian,I know of no other post that has so challeng...Brian,<BR/><BR/>I know of no other post that has so challenged me on this subject matter. I'm working down a lump of fear in my throat because of it!<BR/><BR/>Do you believe all the changes in form of the Catholic Church are organic developments? Here is a small and seemingly unimportant note: What of the lavish lifestyles of the Roman Bishops etc.? I struggle with this in particular (it is a very simple hurdle) as I recall Christ and the Apostles lived in a very simplistic way. This strikes me as a development that is unnecessary and would cause the Lord to cringe. How many More Orphans would be fed by selling a rich garment or furnishing? Now my puritanical thinking comes to rise.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, that is a small issue, but holds much weight for me for one reason or another, a bunny trail none the less.<BR/><BR/>Again your comments on branches and schisms has also been a continual splinter in my thumb. I don't know how anyone can sidestep that. As you mentioned some of those schisms in the first few centuries were not much different than some of the churches or communities that are in the present.<BR/><BR/>Your hammer of intelligent questions are cracking the structure of my walls down. By my own reading and thoughts from people like you, I am continually in thought on this subject and find myself circling around the walls of the Catholic Church.<BR/><BR/>Yet, a part of me is still with Mel. To accept a "greater" authority casts down the many in favor of the one claiming authority. I suppose the grooves that are worn in my heart are protestant through and through. I have a great difficulty truly accepting the idea of a physical body (church structure) rather than a purely mystical one. Is this my gnostic root of heresy?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, thank you Brian. I enjoyed this post very much. I long for the unity of all Christians. I wobble back and forth... Is that unity simply LOVE as in "They will know we are Christians by our love"? Or was there to be a formal structure and framework that Christ intended... in which case, it comes down to two options as you have mentioned?<BR/><BR/>HEADACHE.<BR/><BR/>May the peace of Christ richly dwell in your heart my friend! Be blessed for His name sake.<BR/><BR/>-g-George Weishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07632714882132276803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-92009682222362811512008-09-05T06:52:00.000-05:002008-09-05T06:52:00.000-05:00Mel,Thanks for your comments. What do you think is...Mel,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments. What do you think is the difference between a "branch" and a "schism"? I discussed this in more detail <A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/05/branches-or-schisms-part-ii.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. My concern is that we are treating as mere 'branches' things that are actually schisms; we are mistaking division for diversity. Nobody even thinks in terms of schism anymore. We just 'change traditions', or 'change denominations', or start a new church. When the ecclesiology no longer even makes room for schism (see <A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/06/branches-and-schisms-3.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>), it seems to me that somewhere we have made a serious mistake. If we don't think we are actually divided, then we won't care about pursuing unity. But when you and I don't share the same "one faith" (where "<A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/04/unity-and-mere-christianity.html" REL="nofollow">'mere Christianity' doesn't count</A>"), and we cannot receive the Eucharist together (and thus be "one body" [1 Cor 10:17]), and we are not in the same institutional body under the same set of shepherds, if that's not division then what is? (See <A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/07/marriage-and-spiritual-unity.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.) What would actual division look like?<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-10790619493923678292008-09-05T06:11:00.000-05:002008-09-05T06:11:00.000-05:00Your discussions are so deep, and I thank you. Wh...Your discussions are so deep, and I thank you. When I see that ad, I *do* see choice. I see a diverse Body of Christ with many body parts all doing their role in the worldwide organism that Christ founded, His Body, the Church. Many expressions of His Divinity. There's no way a human body could function well if it was full of only eyes. Or ears. Or toes. Or stomachs. All parts of the body are used to cause the message of Christ to be proclaimed to the earth. And not one part has any claim of superiority than another, not one more set-aside or authoritative than another. Christ is the head. I am grateful for a variety of ways to express faith in the Living God and His Son through the Spirit. I understand what you're saying all along, praying for a physical unity. I think that's something we'll only see in Heaven around that prophesied Supper of the Lamb. Until then, we continue to grow in our faith and do things like blogging and serving the poor among us to show them the Messiah.<BR/>Peace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com