Today at the noon Mass at the Saint Louis Cathedral Basilica I was sitting almost directly under the elevated lectern where Archbishop Burke gave the homily for the Feast of All Souls. (All the concelebrating priests were sitting where I usually sit.)
Listening to him brought to mind the way in which both Pope Benedict XVI and Archbishop Burke make true unity with Protestants more possible. According to some Protestants, ecclesiastical discipline is a mark of the Church. Where discipline is lacking, they claim, the Church is not present. There is truth to that. For Catholics, discipline is included in this line from the Creed: "We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church". Without at least the willingness to discipline, how could it be said that the Church is holy? A Protestant friend of mine not too long ago asked me about holiness as a mark. Where is holiness in the Catholic Church, he asked. When we see clear cases of wickedness, and discipline seems to be lacking, how can we say that the Catholic Church is the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church"? I had similar thoughts both before becoming Catholic, and, even after.
But I have discovered that there is holiness in the Catholic Church. It tends not to make headlines, while cases of egregious depravity surely do. In fact, holy people tend either to annoy the media (imagine how the contemporary press would cover John the Baptist), or be entirely ignored by the media. Holy people do not seek media attention; they prefer secluded places for prayer and humble service. And so from the outside they are mostly invisible. From the inside, they are all over the place. And in some places the concentration of holiness is astounding. Last year, for example, I visited a convent in Nashville and was deeply affected by the obvious holiness of the sisters there. Last weekend I spent two days in the company of a nun-in-the-making. In her presence the verse that kept coming to my mind was John 1:47, "Behold, an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile." In talking with her I was talking to an adult with a graduate level education but who had the innocence and goodness and purity of a little child. Every Monday an elderly sister comes to RCIA. I am not sure I have ever met a more Christ-like person in my life. Her every thought is for others, even though she is probably at least in her eighties, if not older. Kindness pours out of her. Her eyes gleam with joy and gratitude. When I watch her, I think, "That's what I want to be like when I reach that age." Last night I was talking with my wife about people we know who could become saints. The first person she suggested was Archbishop Burke. I agree.
I'm not sure the secular media has yet said much positive about Archbishop Burke. But he is not seeking their praise anyway; he is seeking to please the Lord. He has recently been in the news for writing this article, which provoked responses like this from Ed Peters and this from the Catholic News Agency and "Bishop Would Deny Communion to Giuliani" from the AP. To Protestants who take their faith seriously, Archbishop Burke is someone they can respect for his principled position with respect to the Church's responsibility to safeguard the holiness of the Eucharist. Archbishop Burke's orthodoxy makes 'cafeteria Catholics' uneasy, but in a certain way it challenges biblically-minded Protestants in the St. Louis archdiocese to justify remaining in a state of protest. Abortion? Check. Human embryonic stem cell research? Check. Human cloning? Check. Same-sex 'marriage'? Check. Liturgical propriety? Check. Personal holiness? Check. Love for Christ? Check. Love for Scripture? Check. Willing to discipline? Check. Humble? Check. For these reasons a Biblically-minded Protestant layman or pastor shares much common ground with Archbishop Burke, and can find very much to respect in Archbishop Burke. A person of his character and disposition and principle is a person with whom Biblically-minded Protestant pastors can enter into dialogue. The gulf between theological liberals and evangelicals is far greater than the theological differences between orthodox Catholics and Biblically-minded Protestants.
When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released its "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" in July of this year, Archbishop Burke wrote a very helpful summary that can be found here. In it we see the concern of both the Holy See and Archbishop Burke to safeguard apostolicity. These concerns for holiness and apostolicity provide a good place to begin ecumenical dialogue.
Today I noticed in the news that Pope Benedict is seeking to promote dialogue with non-Catholic Christians. The four marks of the Church are not unrelated to each other; they each depend on the other. That is why the concern for the holiness and apostolicity of the Church as shown both by Pope Benedict and by Archbishop Burke open the door for genuine ecumenical dialogue with those not in full communion with the Catholic Church. To my Protestant brothers and sisters in the Saint Louis archdiocese, let me ask you prayerfully to consider entering into dialogue with Archbishop Burke concerning the unity of the Church in this archdiocese. We can be one again, but first we have to realize that we should be one and are not now one. Once we grasp that, we should be wearing out each other's doorsteps in our commitment to dialogue until unity is recovered. Our hearts are filled with the passion of Christ's sacred heart, revealed in His most intimate prayer: that we would all be one, even as He and the Father are one. (John 17:21,22)
Friday, November 2, 2007
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
490 Years, And Counting
Today, 490 years ago, Martin Luther posted his 95 theses on the Wittenburg door, an event that led very shortly thereafter to the separation of Protestants and Catholics.
The first time in my life that I saw Luther from a Catholic point of view was in the summer of 1990. I was standing in the Church of the Gesu in Rome looking at a sculpture by Pierre LeGros, titled "Faith's Triumph Over Heresy". (See a more detailed photo here.) A woman, quite possibly representing the Virgin Mary, or the Church (or both), holds a cross and puts her foot in judgment and triumph on Martin Luther, with John Hus cowering behind him. An angel rips out pages from a book, possibly representing a book by Luther, or heretics in general. It had never *truly* entered into my mind that someone might actually conceive of Luther as a heretic. It was just a given, for me, that he was a moral and theological hero. So it was shocking in a way, to see Luther depicted in this manner. But the Catholic Church did excommunicate Luther as a heretic. So either Luther's excommunication does not really mean anything (because the Church had no authority, being apostate), or Luther's excommunication does mean something.
This event cannot be considered a mere "branching", or then every excommunication the Church has ever issued could be treated as a mere "branching". Either Luther was cast out of the Church and those who follow him follow an excommunicated heretic, or at that moment Luther was the Church (setting aside, of course, the Orthodox Churches).
It is possible, of course, to believe that the Catholic Church was apostate at the time of Luther but is now no longer apostate. But then there is no justifiable reason for remaining in schism from her. So it seems there is little room for a middle position.
Seventy times seven years have now gone by since that day. Anyone who thinks about this number should feel sorrow that such a division has lasted for such a length of time. Every All Saints Day is, at the same time, a day of mourning and intercession that this division would not continue for another year. I believe that the only way to reconcile Protestants and Catholics is for us all to face the truth about what occurred, not sweep the past under the rug. And questions of authority cannot be avoided here. Whose determination of what heresy is and who is a heretic is authoritative? If the 'authoritative' determination of heresy belongs to each man, then in effect there is no authoritative determination of heresy. Heresy is then in the eye of the beholder. Every heretic in the history of the Church could then say to the magisterium, "Your opinion is no more authoritative than mine. I declare you a heretic." There is no sense at all to the idea of Church discipline (cf. Matthew 18:15-18) if each man has equal ecclesial authority to decide what is heresy, and what is orthodoxy. If one man can defy the authority of the Church, then anyone can defy the authority of the Church, and what is then left of the idea of Church authority? If the Church is wherever each individual determines it to be based on his determination of what the gospel is, then there is no such thing as Church discipline. If everyone has the keys, then no one has the keys. That is simply the nature of authority. The question facing those who decide to follow Luther and his example is this: Whose determination of the content of the canon and the interpretation of the Scripture is authoritative? We should not take authority unto ourselves. That is a principle revealed all through Scripture. It is seen clearly in the life of King David, and the life of Absalom. As I point out here, the resemblance between the original attempt by the "Angel of Light" to usurp the divine throne (Isaiah 14:12-14) and Luther's defiance of the bishops and the seat of St. Peter should deeply concern every Protestant. We tend to forget that in the history of the Church, most heretics and schismatics almost never thought of themselves as such. Only evil people are heretics, we think. In one sense, that is true. Heresy is an evil, and so those who believe heresy are ipso facto in a state of privation of goodness. But the fatal assumption is that evil, even in doctrine, is necessarily self-evident, such that if a belief we hold were heretical, we would obviously and necessarily recognize it to be such. Knowledge of the history of heresies is the antidote to that assumption.
In June of 1522, at the age of 38, Luther wrote, "I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even by the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved." Luther realized that nothing less than that justified schism. (See my "You say one must not papalize".) Notice how Luther's individualism contradicts the universalism of his claim. He sets himself up in his claim as if he is unique among men, while by his very actions he declares that uniqueness is not necessary. If anyone can defy the pope, then anyone can defy Luther. And the fragmentation within Protestantism began almost immediately. The Church declared that Luther's "gospel" was not the Church's gospel, but was heretical. Luther responded by defining the Church according to his own gospel. Either the individual's determination of the gospel determines where the Church is, or the Church determines what the gospel is. If the former is the case, then the Church is where each individual determines it to be, which is to say, it is nowhere. But if the Church determines what the gospel is, then all those in the Protestant tradition should return to the Church. May God unite us in truth and love.
The first time in my life that I saw Luther from a Catholic point of view was in the summer of 1990. I was standing in the Church of the Gesu in Rome looking at a sculpture by Pierre LeGros, titled "Faith's Triumph Over Heresy". (See a more detailed photo here.) A woman, quite possibly representing the Virgin Mary, or the Church (or both), holds a cross and puts her foot in judgment and triumph on Martin Luther, with John Hus cowering behind him. An angel rips out pages from a book, possibly representing a book by Luther, or heretics in general. It had never *truly* entered into my mind that someone might actually conceive of Luther as a heretic. It was just a given, for me, that he was a moral and theological hero. So it was shocking in a way, to see Luther depicted in this manner. But the Catholic Church did excommunicate Luther as a heretic. So either Luther's excommunication does not really mean anything (because the Church had no authority, being apostate), or Luther's excommunication does mean something.
This event cannot be considered a mere "branching", or then every excommunication the Church has ever issued could be treated as a mere "branching". Either Luther was cast out of the Church and those who follow him follow an excommunicated heretic, or at that moment Luther was the Church (setting aside, of course, the Orthodox Churches).
It is possible, of course, to believe that the Catholic Church was apostate at the time of Luther but is now no longer apostate. But then there is no justifiable reason for remaining in schism from her. So it seems there is little room for a middle position.
Seventy times seven years have now gone by since that day. Anyone who thinks about this number should feel sorrow that such a division has lasted for such a length of time. Every All Saints Day is, at the same time, a day of mourning and intercession that this division would not continue for another year. I believe that the only way to reconcile Protestants and Catholics is for us all to face the truth about what occurred, not sweep the past under the rug. And questions of authority cannot be avoided here. Whose determination of what heresy is and who is a heretic is authoritative? If the 'authoritative' determination of heresy belongs to each man, then in effect there is no authoritative determination of heresy. Heresy is then in the eye of the beholder. Every heretic in the history of the Church could then say to the magisterium, "Your opinion is no more authoritative than mine. I declare you a heretic." There is no sense at all to the idea of Church discipline (cf. Matthew 18:15-18) if each man has equal ecclesial authority to decide what is heresy, and what is orthodoxy. If one man can defy the authority of the Church, then anyone can defy the authority of the Church, and what is then left of the idea of Church authority? If the Church is wherever each individual determines it to be based on his determination of what the gospel is, then there is no such thing as Church discipline. If everyone has the keys, then no one has the keys. That is simply the nature of authority. The question facing those who decide to follow Luther and his example is this: Whose determination of the content of the canon and the interpretation of the Scripture is authoritative? We should not take authority unto ourselves. That is a principle revealed all through Scripture. It is seen clearly in the life of King David, and the life of Absalom. As I point out here, the resemblance between the original attempt by the "Angel of Light" to usurp the divine throne (Isaiah 14:12-14) and Luther's defiance of the bishops and the seat of St. Peter should deeply concern every Protestant. We tend to forget that in the history of the Church, most heretics and schismatics almost never thought of themselves as such. Only evil people are heretics, we think. In one sense, that is true. Heresy is an evil, and so those who believe heresy are ipso facto in a state of privation of goodness. But the fatal assumption is that evil, even in doctrine, is necessarily self-evident, such that if a belief we hold were heretical, we would obviously and necessarily recognize it to be such. Knowledge of the history of heresies is the antidote to that assumption.
In June of 1522, at the age of 38, Luther wrote, "I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even by the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved." Luther realized that nothing less than that justified schism. (See my "You say one must not papalize".) Notice how Luther's individualism contradicts the universalism of his claim. He sets himself up in his claim as if he is unique among men, while by his very actions he declares that uniqueness is not necessary. If anyone can defy the pope, then anyone can defy Luther. And the fragmentation within Protestantism began almost immediately. The Church declared that Luther's "gospel" was not the Church's gospel, but was heretical. Luther responded by defining the Church according to his own gospel. Either the individual's determination of the gospel determines where the Church is, or the Church determines what the gospel is. If the former is the case, then the Church is where each individual determines it to be, which is to say, it is nowhere. But if the Church determines what the gospel is, then all those in the Protestant tradition should return to the Church. May God unite us in truth and love.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Scott Carson on private judgment
Scott Carson, a Catholic and a professor of philosophy at Ohio University, recently posted a very worthwhile article on private judgment titled "Why Privileging Private Judgment Is A Sin Against Unity". Tim Enloe posted a response at ReformedCatholicism. My reply to Tim can be found here. Michael Liccione adds his comments here.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Reconciling Catholics and Protestants on justification
The two major doctrinal sticking points between Catholics and Protestants are "sola fide" and "sola scriptura". I have addressed sola scriptura a number of times on this blog, because I think it is more fundamental than is sola fide. But last month I wrote briefly here about justification by faith. Now I wish to say a bit more.
According to Scott Hahn, John Gerstner once said, [paraphrasing], "If we're wrong on sola fide, I'd be on my knees outside the Vatican in Rome tomorrow morning doing penance." What is encouraging about that statement is that he recognizes that if he is wrong about sola fide, he is not only in [material] heresy, but also in schism. It seems to me that fewer Protestants are aware of the truth of a conditional of that sort. I want to focus on "initial justification" by which I mean that initial translation from the state in which man is born in the first Adam to the state of grace through the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Is this initial justification by "faith alone"?
I think the answer to that question depends on what is meant by the term 'faith'. When we [Americans] hear the term 'faith', we tend immediately to think of something entirely individual, internal, private and subjective. But in the fathers, faith is something public. It is something we receive from God through the Church (cf. Romans 10:14-15). We come into the fullness of that life of faith through baptism, which is for that reason called the "sacrament of faith". It is through baptism that we are initially justified, because it is through baptism that we are washed, regenerated, brought into the community of faith and the fullness of the life of faith, and thus joined to the Body of Christ. Yes, of course, catechumens who died prior to baptism were considered by the Church to be justified. But that was not because baptism is not Christ's appointed means of initial justification. Rather, the Church taught that in His mercy Christ granted to these persons also the grace of baptism through their desire for it. Thus it was called "baptism of desire".
When we read passages like Ephesians 2:8, we tend not to recognize that the context has to do with baptism. Reading the fathers on baptism (and they are very clear on this subject) shows that baptism is the sacramental means by which we die with Christ and are raised with Him. And that is what Paul is talking about in Ephesians 2:1-7. So the faith of Ephesians 2:8 is not a private, entirely subjective, individual faith; it is an ecclesial faith, the faith of the Church in the Church with the Church. It is a baptismal faith.
Likewise, Romans 10:9 can only be understood in the context of Romans chapter 6. Romans chapter 6 is all about living in post-baptismal grace. So "confessing with one's mouth" and "believing in one's heart" is not teaching a private, individualistic, non-ecclesial act. Rather, Paul is talking about an act that is still practiced to this day in the Catholic Church. Catechumens confess to (and with) the Church the faith of the Church (i.e. now in the form of the Creed) just prior to their baptism. So the "confessing with one's mouth" Paul is talking about is a public, ecclesial confessing in the context of receiving the sacrament of baptism, and subsequently and regularly in public worship. He does not have to explain this to his readers, because they all know it, having all gone through it themselves. But in the non-sacramental context of contemporary evangelicalism, there is no such awareness of that implicitly understood ecclesial and sacramental context. And hence these verses are often interpreted in very individualistic, non-sacramental and non-ecclesial ways.
Is baptism a work? Yes and no. Yes, in that Christ is the baptizer. He is the one (through the minsters of the Church) who baptizes. He works; we receive baptism. But baptism is not a work of the Law, but a work of grace. With our hearts and mouths we do something. So in that sense we are doing a work in order to be justified. But this work is the result of grace. It is by grace that our eyes have been opened to understand and believe the gospel that was preached to us. It is by grace that we show ourselves to the Church as ready for baptism. It is by grace that we believe and confess before the Church the faith of the Church, and thus it is by grace that we do all those things that lead to our baptism. And so we cannot boast! And yet we were not passive or inactive; it was truly our will that carried out those acts. We were not puppets being pushed by divine will apart from or without our will. But our will was a will transformed and empowered and drawn forward to the Truth and the Mysteries by divine grace.
Are we initially justified by faith alone? If we are speaking about a faith that is sacramental and ecclesial in nature, and as such includes within itself works of all sort, i.e. believing the gospel, repenting, obeying the Commandments and precepts of the Church in the Catechumenate period, willing to be baptized, and in fact receiving baptism, then the answer is yes. Such a conception of faith includes within itself the sacrament of baptism by which we are regenerated and given the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. So in that broad sense of the term 'faith', we could be said to be initially justified by "faith alone". But we are not initially justified by "faith alone" if by 'faith' is meant something entirely individual, private and separate from the sacrament of baptism (and the preparation necessary for its reception) and from incorporation into the life of the Church, a life which includes the other sacraments and prayer and obeying the Commandments. So the debate hinges in part on our conception of 'faith', whether it is individualistic, non-sacramental, and private, or ecclesial, sacramental, and corporate. The more we recognize the connection between baptism and justification, the closer we will be to the Catholic Church's doctrine on the relation of faith and our initial justification.
According to Scott Hahn, John Gerstner once said, [paraphrasing], "If we're wrong on sola fide, I'd be on my knees outside the Vatican in Rome tomorrow morning doing penance." What is encouraging about that statement is that he recognizes that if he is wrong about sola fide, he is not only in [material] heresy, but also in schism. It seems to me that fewer Protestants are aware of the truth of a conditional of that sort. I want to focus on "initial justification" by which I mean that initial translation from the state in which man is born in the first Adam to the state of grace through the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Is this initial justification by "faith alone"?
I think the answer to that question depends on what is meant by the term 'faith'. When we [Americans] hear the term 'faith', we tend immediately to think of something entirely individual, internal, private and subjective. But in the fathers, faith is something public. It is something we receive from God through the Church (cf. Romans 10:14-15). We come into the fullness of that life of faith through baptism, which is for that reason called the "sacrament of faith". It is through baptism that we are initially justified, because it is through baptism that we are washed, regenerated, brought into the community of faith and the fullness of the life of faith, and thus joined to the Body of Christ. Yes, of course, catechumens who died prior to baptism were considered by the Church to be justified. But that was not because baptism is not Christ's appointed means of initial justification. Rather, the Church taught that in His mercy Christ granted to these persons also the grace of baptism through their desire for it. Thus it was called "baptism of desire".
When we read passages like Ephesians 2:8, we tend not to recognize that the context has to do with baptism. Reading the fathers on baptism (and they are very clear on this subject) shows that baptism is the sacramental means by which we die with Christ and are raised with Him. And that is what Paul is talking about in Ephesians 2:1-7. So the faith of Ephesians 2:8 is not a private, entirely subjective, individual faith; it is an ecclesial faith, the faith of the Church in the Church with the Church. It is a baptismal faith.
Likewise, Romans 10:9 can only be understood in the context of Romans chapter 6. Romans chapter 6 is all about living in post-baptismal grace. So "confessing with one's mouth" and "believing in one's heart" is not teaching a private, individualistic, non-ecclesial act. Rather, Paul is talking about an act that is still practiced to this day in the Catholic Church. Catechumens confess to (and with) the Church the faith of the Church (i.e. now in the form of the Creed) just prior to their baptism. So the "confessing with one's mouth" Paul is talking about is a public, ecclesial confessing in the context of receiving the sacrament of baptism, and subsequently and regularly in public worship. He does not have to explain this to his readers, because they all know it, having all gone through it themselves. But in the non-sacramental context of contemporary evangelicalism, there is no such awareness of that implicitly understood ecclesial and sacramental context. And hence these verses are often interpreted in very individualistic, non-sacramental and non-ecclesial ways.
Is baptism a work? Yes and no. Yes, in that Christ is the baptizer. He is the one (through the minsters of the Church) who baptizes. He works; we receive baptism. But baptism is not a work of the Law, but a work of grace. With our hearts and mouths we do something. So in that sense we are doing a work in order to be justified. But this work is the result of grace. It is by grace that our eyes have been opened to understand and believe the gospel that was preached to us. It is by grace that we show ourselves to the Church as ready for baptism. It is by grace that we believe and confess before the Church the faith of the Church, and thus it is by grace that we do all those things that lead to our baptism. And so we cannot boast! And yet we were not passive or inactive; it was truly our will that carried out those acts. We were not puppets being pushed by divine will apart from or without our will. But our will was a will transformed and empowered and drawn forward to the Truth and the Mysteries by divine grace.
Are we initially justified by faith alone? If we are speaking about a faith that is sacramental and ecclesial in nature, and as such includes within itself works of all sort, i.e. believing the gospel, repenting, obeying the Commandments and precepts of the Church in the Catechumenate period, willing to be baptized, and in fact receiving baptism, then the answer is yes. Such a conception of faith includes within itself the sacrament of baptism by which we are regenerated and given the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. So in that broad sense of the term 'faith', we could be said to be initially justified by "faith alone". But we are not initially justified by "faith alone" if by 'faith' is meant something entirely individual, private and separate from the sacrament of baptism (and the preparation necessary for its reception) and from incorporation into the life of the Church, a life which includes the other sacraments and prayer and obeying the Commandments. So the debate hinges in part on our conception of 'faith', whether it is individualistic, non-sacramental, and private, or ecclesial, sacramental, and corporate. The more we recognize the connection between baptism and justification, the closer we will be to the Catholic Church's doctrine on the relation of faith and our initial justification.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
Reply to Higgins in Plausible Ecumenicism
This past summer I wrote a brief reply to Craig Higgins' section of the article in Touchstone titled "Plausible Ecumenicism." My reply can be found here
Thursday, October 18, 2007
To Guide our Feet into the Way of Peace
Today is the Feast day of St. Luke the Evangelist. St. Luke records the prophecy of the high priest Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist. Zacharias prophecies that John the Baptist will "go on before the Lord to prepare His ways", and "to guide our feet into the way of peace." (St. Luke 1:76,79)
In St. Luke 12:49-53, Jesus shows us that the way of peace is necessarily one that involves conflict with the world, a certain kind of conflict with those who reject and hate Christ, as I have discussed here. But the way of peace must bring peace and unity to and among and between all those who love Christ. In these last days, we lift our heads to prepare for Christ's return. The Bride makes herself ready for His second coming. And again we need our feet to be guided into the way of peace. For if we are separated into myriad schisms, how can we say that we are walking in the way of peace? Shouldn't the way of peace lead us to be at peace with each other, united in faith, practice and governance? Shouldn't the followers of the "Prince of Peace" be at peace with each other? Shouldn't the way of peace necessarily involve being reconciled to our brothers and sisters in Christ (St. Matthew 5:24)? At the very least, shouldn't the way of peace involve an unrelenting impassioned effort on our part to be reconciled to our brothers and sisters from whom we are separated by schism? Can he who makes no such effort say to himself rightly, "I am walking in the way of peace"? St. Peter tells that we "must seek peace and pursue it" (1 Peter 3:11) If we are men and women of peace, men and women walking in the way of peace, then shouldn't we be seeking and pursuing peace with those in the household of faith from whom we are estranged? An individualistic notion of peace would concern itself only with our personal relation to Christ, and would not include our relation to our brothers and sisters in Christ. But the writer to the Hebrews commands us to "pursue peace with all men" (Hebrews 12:14). So how much more ought we to be pursuing peace with those within the "household of faith"?
Is all this mere idealism? A confusion of the already and the not yet? The writers of Scripture do not tell us to wait until the eschaton to pursue peace. The command is for Today, because the way of peace into which our feet are to be guided is for Today. The fractured state of Christendom can become so ordinary and familiar to us that calls and efforts to restore and retrieve peace and unity seem idealistic, radical and even foolish. But that is only because we have grown so accustomed to the state of schism that it no longer seems evil to us. The unity of the early Christians was such that they "were together and had all things in common" (Acts 2:44). We have to recover an awareness of the unity and peace that Christ gave to the Church (St. John 14:27), and which He desires us to maintain and pursue in His Household and His Body, the Church. We know that a "house divided cannot stand". (St. Matthew 12:25; St. Mark 3:25; St. Luke 11:17) And is it not a cancerous condition when a body contains cells or groups of cells that pursue an end of their own making, and not the good and unity of the whole body? It seems to me that we need to be spreading the following word to all believers, including those with whom we are already in full communion: "Come, let us fervently pursue peace and reconciliation with those believers who are presently estranged from us. Let us not rest until this reconciliation is achieved and the schisms removed. The Prince of Peace is coming soon. Let us prepare ourselves by making peace with each other."
Lord Jesus, may we be made one, as you and the Father are one. Make us instruments of your peace. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
In St. Luke 12:49-53, Jesus shows us that the way of peace is necessarily one that involves conflict with the world, a certain kind of conflict with those who reject and hate Christ, as I have discussed here. But the way of peace must bring peace and unity to and among and between all those who love Christ. In these last days, we lift our heads to prepare for Christ's return. The Bride makes herself ready for His second coming. And again we need our feet to be guided into the way of peace. For if we are separated into myriad schisms, how can we say that we are walking in the way of peace? Shouldn't the way of peace lead us to be at peace with each other, united in faith, practice and governance? Shouldn't the followers of the "Prince of Peace" be at peace with each other? Shouldn't the way of peace necessarily involve being reconciled to our brothers and sisters in Christ (St. Matthew 5:24)? At the very least, shouldn't the way of peace involve an unrelenting impassioned effort on our part to be reconciled to our brothers and sisters from whom we are separated by schism? Can he who makes no such effort say to himself rightly, "I am walking in the way of peace"? St. Peter tells that we "must seek peace and pursue it" (1 Peter 3:11) If we are men and women of peace, men and women walking in the way of peace, then shouldn't we be seeking and pursuing peace with those in the household of faith from whom we are estranged? An individualistic notion of peace would concern itself only with our personal relation to Christ, and would not include our relation to our brothers and sisters in Christ. But the writer to the Hebrews commands us to "pursue peace with all men" (Hebrews 12:14). So how much more ought we to be pursuing peace with those within the "household of faith"?
Is all this mere idealism? A confusion of the already and the not yet? The writers of Scripture do not tell us to wait until the eschaton to pursue peace. The command is for Today, because the way of peace into which our feet are to be guided is for Today. The fractured state of Christendom can become so ordinary and familiar to us that calls and efforts to restore and retrieve peace and unity seem idealistic, radical and even foolish. But that is only because we have grown so accustomed to the state of schism that it no longer seems evil to us. The unity of the early Christians was such that they "were together and had all things in common" (Acts 2:44). We have to recover an awareness of the unity and peace that Christ gave to the Church (St. John 14:27), and which He desires us to maintain and pursue in His Household and His Body, the Church. We know that a "house divided cannot stand". (St. Matthew 12:25; St. Mark 3:25; St. Luke 11:17) And is it not a cancerous condition when a body contains cells or groups of cells that pursue an end of their own making, and not the good and unity of the whole body? It seems to me that we need to be spreading the following word to all believers, including those with whom we are already in full communion: "Come, let us fervently pursue peace and reconciliation with those believers who are presently estranged from us. Let us not rest until this reconciliation is achieved and the schisms removed. The Prince of Peace is coming soon. Let us prepare ourselves by making peace with each other."
Lord Jesus, may we be made one, as you and the Father are one. Make us instruments of your peace. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
St. Ignatius on Unity
Today is the memorial of Saint Ignatius bishop of Antioch. He was martyred by Emperor Trajan in 107 AD. The following selection was in last week's readings in the Liturgy of the Hours. It is from Saint Ignatius' letter to the Philadelphians:
"I greet you in the blood of Jesus Christ. You are my abiding and unshakable joy, especially if your members remain united with the bishop and with his presbyters and deacons, all appointed in accordance with the mind of Christ who by His own will has strengthened them in the firmness which the Spirit gives. ... As sons of the light of truth, flee divisions and evil doctrines; where your shepherd is, follow him as his flock. For all who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop; all who repent and return to the unity of the Church will also belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not be deceived, my brothers. If anyone follows a schismatic, he will not obtain the inheritance of God's kingdom; if anyone lives by an alien teaching, he does not assent to the passion of the Lord. Be careful, therefore, to take part only in the one eucharist; for there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us with His blood, one altar and one bishop with the presbyters and deacons, who are his fellow servants. Then, whatever you do, you will do according to God."
Saint Ignatius, please pray that all Christians would follow the rightful bishop of their diocese, so that we might all partake of the one eucharist, in order that we may be perfected in unity.
"I greet you in the blood of Jesus Christ. You are my abiding and unshakable joy, especially if your members remain united with the bishop and with his presbyters and deacons, all appointed in accordance with the mind of Christ who by His own will has strengthened them in the firmness which the Spirit gives. ... As sons of the light of truth, flee divisions and evil doctrines; where your shepherd is, follow him as his flock. For all who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop; all who repent and return to the unity of the Church will also belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not be deceived, my brothers. If anyone follows a schismatic, he will not obtain the inheritance of God's kingdom; if anyone lives by an alien teaching, he does not assent to the passion of the Lord. Be careful, therefore, to take part only in the one eucharist; for there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us with His blood, one altar and one bishop with the presbyters and deacons, who are his fellow servants. Then, whatever you do, you will do according to God."
Saint Ignatius, please pray that all Christians would follow the rightful bishop of their diocese, so that we might all partake of the one eucharist, in order that we may be perfected in unity.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
How Not To Reform the Church
Step 1: Define some part of your own personal interpretation of the Bible to be the true "gospel", defending your definition by claiming that [your] gospel is what the Apostles taught but has since been lost, hidden, distorted and corrupted until now. Don't use the word 'interpretation'; if necessary call it 'exegesis' to make it seem entirely objective and scientific.
Step 2: Declare and assert, again based on your own personal interpretation of the Bible, that the preaching of the true "gospel" is one of the essential marks of the Church.
Step 3: Point out that only you and those who agree with you bear all the essential marks (as you yourself have defined them in Steps 1-2) of the Church, and that the rest of the so-called Church does not bear all these marks and is therefore apostate and not the true Church.
Step 4: Get yourself excommunicated by that so-called Church which (through Steps 1-3) you have just declared apostate.
Step 5: State that you believe in "semper reformanda", and vigorously oppose the notion that the magisterium is infallible, while also declaring that anyone who repeats Step 1 but comes to a different conclusion regarding the nature of the true "gospel" is ipso facto a heretic and/or an apostate. When asked how what you have done differs from forming a schism, assert that a schism would have a different gospel than the true "gospel" you have recovered.
Step 6: Celebrate your reformation of the Church every year on the anniversary of your initiation of Step 1, and declare and assert that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church continues only with you and those who agree with you regarding the content of the true "gospel".
Today is the memorial of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690), who helped us know more deeply the depth of love which flows continually from the Sacred Heart of Jesus. From that pierced heart flows the water and the blood by which through the sacraments the Church is fashioned into a Bride from and for the Second Adam. As St. John Chrysostom writes:
At almost every Mass, for the past year, as I come before Christ in the Eucharist to drink from His very side, I experience a deep pain in the center of my soul. Usually it moves me to the point of tears. I have to remember always to bring a handkerchief to Mass. Sometimes, I struggle to restrain myself from open weeping. I do not fully understand this experience, but I do know that it has to do with the brokenness and division in Christ's Body. The best I can explain it is like this. Here I am, coming before the Living Christ to receive the Life that flows from His Sacred Heart. And yet while the Living Christ is being offered to me, His Sacred Heart is in pain, and He Himself is weeping over all those who are separated in schisms, wounding the integrity of His Body but not knowing what they are doing. He is weeping over their absence and estrangement. He wishes to gather them together, that we may all be one in Him, as one flock with one Shepherd, as one Body with one Head. In the presence of that divine weeping, the same pain rises up in my heart. How can I sup with Him in joy when my brothers and sisters, His brothers and sisters, do not sup with us? It would be like sitting down at the table for Thanksgiving dinner, while one or more members of the family are in another house, unreconciled to us. How can I be joyful while my brother's seat is empty, while my sister's seat lies vacant, because of an unresolved family quarrel? How could I not feel the pain of their absence? But obviously I do not outdo Christ. Does He not push back His chair first, jump up from the table, run to His separated brothers and sisters and plead with them: "Come, come back to the table. Come home and be reconciled. Let us be together as one family again. Put aside your pride, and let us heal these schisms. We are waiting for you with open arms. We want to eat with you; we want you to share in the joy of partaking of this divine Food and this heavenly Meal with us. And so our joy cannot be full while you are estranged from us. You are all so dear to our hearts, and the rest of the family longs for your return." And if He is spurned or ignored, though this is like a knife in His heart, He does not give up but implores all the more, "Come and be reconciled to your brothers and sisters. See, our faces are wet with tears, and our hearts are weighed down with sorrow because of your absence. Do not let your heart grow hard and complacent; do not let yourself become comfortable in your separation or put out of your mind that you are estranged from us, and that we long for you to return home. Come, determine in your heart to be reconciled to us, no matter how difficult that process may be, so that we might eat together in the fullness of the Peace and Joy of the Life of the Blessed Trinity."
Sacred Heart of Jesus, unite our hearts to yours. Please use us to bring all of those who love you into the full and visible unity of your Body the Church, that we may all share in the fullness of the eternal Peace and Joy that is the Life of the Blessed Trinity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Step 2: Declare and assert, again based on your own personal interpretation of the Bible, that the preaching of the true "gospel" is one of the essential marks of the Church.
Step 3: Point out that only you and those who agree with you bear all the essential marks (as you yourself have defined them in Steps 1-2) of the Church, and that the rest of the so-called Church does not bear all these marks and is therefore apostate and not the true Church.
Step 4: Get yourself excommunicated by that so-called Church which (through Steps 1-3) you have just declared apostate.
Step 5: State that you believe in "semper reformanda", and vigorously oppose the notion that the magisterium is infallible, while also declaring that anyone who repeats Step 1 but comes to a different conclusion regarding the nature of the true "gospel" is ipso facto a heretic and/or an apostate. When asked how what you have done differs from forming a schism, assert that a schism would have a different gospel than the true "gospel" you have recovered.
Step 6: Celebrate your reformation of the Church every year on the anniversary of your initiation of Step 1, and declare and assert that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church continues only with you and those who agree with you regarding the content of the true "gospel".
Today is the memorial of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690), who helped us know more deeply the depth of love which flows continually from the Sacred Heart of Jesus. From that pierced heart flows the water and the blood by which through the sacraments the Church is fashioned into a Bride from and for the Second Adam. As St. John Chrysostom writes:
For "there came forth water and blood." Not without a purpose, or by chance, did those founts come forth, but because by means of these two together the Church consisteth. And the initiated know it, being by water indeed regenerate, and nourished by the Blood and the Flesh. Hence the Mysteries take their beginning; that when thou approachest to that awful cup, thou mayest so approach, as drinking from the very side.
At almost every Mass, for the past year, as I come before Christ in the Eucharist to drink from His very side, I experience a deep pain in the center of my soul. Usually it moves me to the point of tears. I have to remember always to bring a handkerchief to Mass. Sometimes, I struggle to restrain myself from open weeping. I do not fully understand this experience, but I do know that it has to do with the brokenness and division in Christ's Body. The best I can explain it is like this. Here I am, coming before the Living Christ to receive the Life that flows from His Sacred Heart. And yet while the Living Christ is being offered to me, His Sacred Heart is in pain, and He Himself is weeping over all those who are separated in schisms, wounding the integrity of His Body but not knowing what they are doing. He is weeping over their absence and estrangement. He wishes to gather them together, that we may all be one in Him, as one flock with one Shepherd, as one Body with one Head. In the presence of that divine weeping, the same pain rises up in my heart. How can I sup with Him in joy when my brothers and sisters, His brothers and sisters, do not sup with us? It would be like sitting down at the table for Thanksgiving dinner, while one or more members of the family are in another house, unreconciled to us. How can I be joyful while my brother's seat is empty, while my sister's seat lies vacant, because of an unresolved family quarrel? How could I not feel the pain of their absence? But obviously I do not outdo Christ. Does He not push back His chair first, jump up from the table, run to His separated brothers and sisters and plead with them: "Come, come back to the table. Come home and be reconciled. Let us be together as one family again. Put aside your pride, and let us heal these schisms. We are waiting for you with open arms. We want to eat with you; we want you to share in the joy of partaking of this divine Food and this heavenly Meal with us. And so our joy cannot be full while you are estranged from us. You are all so dear to our hearts, and the rest of the family longs for your return." And if He is spurned or ignored, though this is like a knife in His heart, He does not give up but implores all the more, "Come and be reconciled to your brothers and sisters. See, our faces are wet with tears, and our hearts are weighed down with sorrow because of your absence. Do not let your heart grow hard and complacent; do not let yourself become comfortable in your separation or put out of your mind that you are estranged from us, and that we long for you to return home. Come, determine in your heart to be reconciled to us, no matter how difficult that process may be, so that we might eat together in the fullness of the Peace and Joy of the Life of the Blessed Trinity."
Sacred Heart of Jesus, unite our hearts to yours. Please use us to bring all of those who love you into the full and visible unity of your Body the Church, that we may all share in the fullness of the eternal Peace and Joy that is the Life of the Blessed Trinity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
