Recently in Being Catholic Category

I need to make two introductory comments to this post. They concern things that happened about the time I returned to making (fairly) regular entries here at The 7 Habitus.

The first is that, as a self-imposed rule, I decided to limit entries here to no more than 750 words, and never, ever, exceed 1,000 words. I only mention this by way of saying that this may be one of the few times I break my own rule – apologies in advance; I’ll try to do better in the future.

Second, some time around the beginning of March this year was when I first discovered Touchstone Magazine’s blog, Mere Comments. This, along with Flos Carmeli and TSO’s blog, has become regular fare in my brief daily sessions of web surfing. On Mere Comments I nearly always find something interesting and certainly thought provoking, especially the posts written by Dr. SM Hutchins or Dr. Anthony Esolen. I greatly admire the work they are doing at Touchstone and, if you have not discovered their blog, I highly recommend it. The link is here.

Anyway, just before my vacation, Dr. Hutchins had a post on Mere Comments, titled “A Biographical Note,� and that post stuck with me all through the trip and is still with me. I intended to try to write about it either before or during the trip, but was too busy having fun. The thing is, I agree with most of what he has to say but I thought his concluding paragraph struck a discordant note that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. It just didn’t seem consistent with most of what I read in both the magazine and the blog. I guess that’s one reason why it has stuck with me so doggedly. I recognized that one reason may be that he addressed so well issues that were key in my own conversion.

For example, he writes:

In my youth the problem of the Church presented itself to me in the form of the question, “Why do we hardly consider it possible for members of other churches to be Christians?� Our denominational theology, despite the pastors’ attempts to trace it to the New Testament, seemed to be relatively new on the scene. Why were there places in the Bible where in his sermons, and in the Sunday school classes, we had to “get fancy,� that is, all of a sudden switch into a mode where we didn’t treat the Bible as true unless we first added to or subtracted from it? Why, when preaching in this mode, did the pastor inform us in an oblique way that we were not qualified to question his authorities because we did not know Greek or Hebrew? Something was fishy here. Might others be different than us because they didn't get tricky with certain parts of the Bible? Are Catholics—or Presbyterians, for that matter—as stupid, or as abandoned by God, as our church’s beliefs would lead us to think? It would be silly to imagine that Catholic experts don’t know Greek and Hebrew. I knew a good many people (I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood) who were not in our communion who seem to believe the same basic things we do, and were just as devout as any of us. What was going on here?

This is precisely the question presented to me that lead to my coming home to Rome. In my Presbyterian church the teaching went from soundly Biblical based, almost evangelical, truth to the kind of “getting fancy� that Hutchins talks about. The constant refrain in preaching and teaching became “What this text really means is . . .� You can substitute your own version of any secular heresy that comes to mind in place of the ellipsis. Although I couldn’t exactly explain it, I knew something was very wrong, and I knew there had to be a place where the wrong could be righted. That began the search.

Another example:

To me the Vincentian Canon ("what has been believed everywhere, in all places, by all Christians") is no theoretical construct, rendered delicate because of major disagreements among Christians, but has real, almost palpable meaning. Ninety-nine percent of the preaching of a preacher who gives careful and respectful treatment to the scriptures (which is to say, doing none of the adding or subtracting that defines the sect) is non-controversial among believers. Nor does one need to prove to me J. Gresham Machen’s theses that (1) there is a discrete spiritual phenomenon and doctrinal identity that is denominated “liberalism,� and (2) it is not Christianity, but another religion altogether, fully describable as such according to its doctrines--fundamentally mendacious, fundamentally deceptive, fundamentally demonic, hostile to the Christian faith. I have watched it up close for years, know what it believes and denies, understand its particular appeal to intellectual pride (not intellect--but pride), have seen what it does to the churches that decide to accommodate it, and watched them one by one wither and die as Christian churches. It is exactly as H. Richard Niebuhr said: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

This may be a bit strongly put, yet the key points about liberalism are that it is not Christian and is, at it’s heart “fundamentally mendacious, . . . hostile to the Christian faith.� I believe this is absolutely true, otherwise there is no need to say of any Bible passage, “What this really means is . . .� If you can’t take the Bible at is word, if you try to say that one part or another is not true, especially where it makes a statement of fact, then you must conclude that no part of it can be trusted. The Bible, in this circumstance is no different from any other book; it ceases to be God’s revelation of Himself.

Yet, there is a problem that all Christians, no matter the denomination in which we find ourselves, must face up to. That problem is that the Church is human. Many Protestants, find themselves cut adrift by the take over of the mainline denominations by the radical leftists who only wish to pursue a strictly secularist-materialist agenda. This was my own situation. The question became urgent: where does one go to find the truth? Having been baptized a Lutheran, then growing up a Presbyterian, I could not bring myself to attend a Baptist church, nor one of the “non-denominationals�. The Lutherans were in just the same mess as the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians were way off the chart. I think many Protestants are having this same experience and find themselves trying one church after another in an effort to find a true home. Dr. Hutchens has certainly had this experience, going from Baptist all the way to Episcopal, and perhaps back again. He writes:

The illusion of movement is created by the fact that in my lifetime the western churches, Catholic and Protestant, have undergone upheaval as violent and concentrated as they have any time since the Reformation. (The blue-collar Conservative Baptist Church in which I was raised with a serious, traditional Protestant order of service, now has a gaudy, foot-stompin’ religious floor show with Jeezus as its special, invisible guest star. The pastor, once master of an orderly house which spoke softly of the catholic faith, is now led about by an impertinent jester with the title “worship leader.� Analogous things have happened in most churches. There have been, in the wake of feminism, substantive, doctrinal changes that are deviations from--or, if one takes the standard line, improvements upon--traditional beliefs and practices of the whole Church. This time the Catholics haven't needed Protestants to break their altars; they are doing the job quite well by themselves by allowing Catholic vandals do the work unhindered.)

The same thing seems to be happening everywhere and this has lead Dr. Hutchens to conclude:

And to anticipate comments I know I will receive: The calls of certain of my brethren to join them in other shell craters they have mistaken for Mount Zion does not tempt me; it only makes me wonder what they are drinking, and how long it will be before the casing upon which they have spread their crystal and fine old china finds its own live fuse. Those of you who have "come home" are in as great a danger of being de-Christianized by your own communion's follies as I am by mine.

There is no doubt that Christians of all stripes have had their share of, shall we say, “embarrassments�. Catholics have certainly felt the pain of a clergy too steeped in the modern secularist agenda and too out of touch with Christian truth. Yet, in my heart, I knew there had to be such a Church where the Truth was taught without fear; when I discovered it in the Church, to be honest, my first reaction was one of terror. My first thought was, “Oh no!� But there it was.

I had to admit, the Church has had its problems over the centuries, yet I was able to see a core of truth in her teaching, and that the other things were not central to what the Church was. As Richard John Neuhaus has so admirably pointed out in his new book, Catholic Matters, the Church has experienced such things in the past; failure, sin, is regrettably inevitable in any organization composed of human beings. The Church itself is divine, its members are definitely not. Still, Jesus himself promised that the Church is built upon the rock of Peter and “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.� The remarkable thing is that, despite all the sin, ignorance, and general cussedness that has been a part of the Church from the beginning, she is still around, and still strong.

So, while at first, I didn’t know what it was that bothered me so much about this ost, I realized that it was exactly contrary to my own experience. I was able to see that, if there is such a thing as objective Truth, then there must be a place where that Truth can be found, otherwise, our understanding of God could never be sufficient to allow us to know Him, much less worship Him. The existence of objective Truth is a central part of the Christian world view, that and the fact that Truth can be known, however imperfectly. What bothered me about this post is that it seems Dr Hutchens has given up on the possibility that Truth resides anywhere within the Church.

I’m not a scholar; I’m a layman, a layman who faced a real dilemma concerning my faith. It became obvious to me that truth could not be fiddled with, subject to the interpretation of those who had to fudge the clear meaning of a text. I found a fundamental inconsistency with that approach and the bed rock, long standing principle of sola scriptura. It was clear to me that a church that taught one of these ideas, could not abide the other. It was also clear, that if I could not resolve the situation, I would have to have serious questions about Christianity itself. That dilemma, in my case, began the search for truth, and that, as I have so often said, lead me to Rome.

Yes, I know the Church isn’t perfect, but neither am I. I simply saw that we are both searching for the same thing; I only hope we deserve each other.

Pope Benedict's liturgies to change, says papal master of ceremonies. This story appeared in Zenit this past week:

Liturgies celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI are undergoing changes, said the papal master of liturgical ceremonies.

Catholic News Service reports that Archbishop Piero Marini, who also served as master of ceremonies for Pope John Paul II, said that with Pope Benedict "I have to be a little more attentive because he is an expert in liturgy."

"But it gives me satisfaction because he always recognises the work that has been done, and we talk about it together," said the 64-year-old Italian, who has worked at the Vatican since 1965.

In a 20 March interview with the Milan-based online news site, Affari Italiani, the archbishop said he and the pope "are re-elaborating the papal ceremonies."

"I send him my notes and he returns them with his signature as a sign of approval, or else he suggests, completes or corrects," he said.

The archbishop did not provide details about what changes people may see in the papal liturgies or when they would be unveiled.

Archbishop Marini said each pope is different in his approach to the liturgy, particularly the large international celebrations he is called to lead.

"With John Paul II, I was a bit freer; we had an implicit agreement because he was a man of prayer and not of liturgy," the archbishop said.

+ + +
Archbishop Marini said he understood why Pope John Paul gave permission for bishops to authorise the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Mass in some churches for "older faithful" who were attached to the old rite.

"But to go beyond this is to go beyond the church," he said. "If the liturgy is the sign of the unity of the church, you cannot create groups of faithful who pray in a certain way on this day at this hour, then an hour later another group prays in another way.

"First of all we must understand that the liturgy is a sign of unity," he said. "It is not a matter of liberalising the missal or anything else. It is only a question of accepting the church today, just that."

According to the story, there are few details except that there will be a “re-elaboration� of these liturgies.

My first reaction was that this would be a good thing; I equated “change� with improvement and assumed that would imply “improvement.� It likely will, but not necessarily. The reason for my doubt is that, what is done well at the Vatican may not be done well in my local parish.

Some background is in order. I am a convert, having come into the Church in 1995. Although I grew up in a neighborhood with a lot of Catholic friends, and even had a Catholic relative or two, I never knew the Latin Mass as a Catholic. The Mass I have come to know, and to some extent appreciate, is the post-Vatican II version. For all its faults, it was far better than the mess that the Presbyterian worship service had become by 1995.

After Benedict’s election, the pastor at our parish, following what seemed to be the direction that Benedict would take, Father began to introduce Latin Mass parts to the Mass. This was done by setting aside one Mass per month at which we would have a small choir, stationed in the loft at the back of the church, doing chant and the Latin portions for this Mass. I loved the idea then found it discomforting.

The problem arose when the choir, probably correctly, decided to do the chant acapella. The acoustics in the building are not the greatest and the choir itself is good, but also not great, and my musical abilities as far as singing are, at best, limited. In fact, some would say they are non-existent. I can surely make a joyful noise, but little else, and I need to be able to hear the music clearly to follow along. So, between the unfamiliar language and my inability to follow the chant, the experience has been little more than a distraction, and, at first, upsetting. I guess by Presbyterian background is too strong, but I like to be able to fully participate at worship, not just sit and be a passive observer. It was only at this month’s Mass that I decided to give up and not try to follow along, that I was able to catch a glimpse of the beauty of the Latin in the Mass and the potential for it to provide a way to worshipfully “assist� as Mass. I realized that I was putting too much effort into trying to participate rather than pray and that was the source of the distraction.

So, I have to confess to a certain reticence concerning the Latin Mass, and trepidation concerning “change� in the liturgy. I think if I were a recent convert I might not have the problem, but I’m not, I’ve been doing the post-Vatican II Mass for over ten years and I’ve gotten used to it. I hate to say it, but I think changing back to Latin might be as disruptive for me as the change from Latin to English was for Catholics back in the sixties.

You can teach an old dog new tricks, but it ain’t easy.

This was just announced by AsiaNews.

15 March, 2006 VATICAN “Profound, inseparable and mysterious continuity� links Jesus and “his Church�

Benedict XVI announced that he will dedicate the forthcoming Wednesday catechesis to this relationship. Christ aimed to establish and to save the People of God, so an “individualistic� vision of his message, and claims of conflict between Jesus and the Church, are unacceptable.

Vatican City (AsiaNews) – The message of Jesus cannot be separated “from the context of faith and hope of the chosen people� because “even if his preaching is always an appeal to personal conversion, in reality it is continually aimed at the constitution of the People of God, who he came to gather together and save�. The affirmation of the “profound, inseparable, and mysterious continuity� between Jesus and “his Church�, which renders invalid the statement, “Jesus yes, Church no�, will be the theme to which Pope Benedict XVI will dedicate the reflections of the upcoming general audiences. This was announced by the pope himself as he addressed 30,000 worshippers present in St Peter’s Square for today’s audience. He said that once the cycle of reflections dedicated to the Psalms and Canticles of the Lauds and Vespers is over, he will dedicate himself to illustrating the “relationship between Christ and the Church, starting from the experience of the Apostles, in the light of the task entrusted to them�.

This should be a fascinating series of teachings from our Holy Father. It is really interesting to me because it ties with one of the central ideas of Fr. Boylan in the book I am reading for Lent, This Tremendous Lover, that is, the indispensible role of the Church in our salvation. This would be in direct contrast to the "Jesus and me" train of thought.

“For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?� (Matthew 16:26, NAB)

These are the words of Jesus to the disciples after Peter has protested Jesus prophecy of the cross. Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, in The St. James Devotional Guide for Spring of this year, states that this is the question facing all of us, especially during the season of Lent.

As Fr. Reardon points out, we do not live in a soul-friendly time. With modern technology providing us all sorts of avenues for distraction, finding necessary the interior space and exterior quite is no small challenge. There are a good many people today who don’t even realize what it means to have an interior life, much less how to live one. On top of that, the traditional avenues available for soul stretching are becoming increasingly neglected. We no longer have the means to provide us the grist for our internal mills, so to speak, for what is being taught in schools these days hardly qualifies as truly enlightening. As Fr. Reardon says,

There was a time – nor was it so very long ago – when music, art, and literature served as normal paths in the discovery of the soul. In former days our teachers taught us the nature and structure of our souls by introducing us to the likes of Mozart, Raphael, and Jane Austen. It sounds old-fashioned to say such things, but there really is a reliable canon of standard texts that have served the test of time in the discovery of the soul, and only at great peril do we abandon that canon.

When I was a Presbyterian thinking of coming into the Church, one of the things I gave some real thought to was having to "give up" something for Lent, i.e., enduring a time of penance. Presbyterians really don't believe in that kind of thing. Now, it is one of the things that I am most grateful to the Church for since I find I need this time to regroup and rediscover exactly what my priorities should be. If it doesn't help me answer that question, it at least reminds me that I have to try.

Father Eugene Boylen writes extensively about the Church in his book, This Tremendous Lover. He compares the Church to a human body, with Christ as its head. We all, as members of the Mystical Body share in the life of Christ, just as each organ, each cell, in a human body shares in the life of the person. He says that there are three things necessary for the individual cell to remain a living member of the body: it must be present in the body, it must participate in the vivifying principle that animates the body, and it must work for the good of the body. For example, a bullet can be part of the body, but it does not share in the life of that body. A cancerous cell shares in the life of the body, but it works for its own ends, rather than for the over all good of the body and thus destroys the body.

An essential element in the life of the Church is obedience, a term not many of us are comfortable with today. He writes:

Obedience is obviously the law of its [The Mystical Body of Christ's] life. Every single act, even the slightest, done contrary to the will of God, cannot be shared by Christ, it is not part of the life of His Body, and therefore it has no real value. To partake in the life of the Body fully, the members must be subject to the Head - the ruling principle. The peculiar circumstances of the human soul in its membership of Christ, must always be kept in mind. Incorporation into Christ does not take away one's own personality; one has free will and retains full domain over one's own actions - one can determine what one's actions are to be. Deliberate refusal to conform to the will of God in a grave matter means mortal sin, and a consequent severing of the vital circulation that makes the soul a living member of Christ. Such disobedience is fatal. Even if the matter is not grave, the action, though not its agent, is severed from that vital circulation and the way is paved for complete severance of the agent by more serious falls in the future.

This is the classical answer to politicians who say things like they are personally opposed to abortion (grave matter) but must “follow their conscience� when it comes to matters of government. When that happens, they are not really being obedient to Christ. Some of these politicians will say that they still believe themselves “good� Catholics, but their disobedience puts them outside the Church. The same is true of priests or other dissenters who insist that the Church is wrong when it comes to her teaching of human sexuality or abortion; they, by definition, have cut themselves off from the life of the body. We cannot share in the life of Christ, we cannot participate fully in the life of the Body, and withhold something of ourselves from Christ. When that happens, we become like a cancer on the body working for its destruction rather than its good.

The difficult thing about this is that we think obedience takes away our freedom, but its just the opposite – obedience leaves us free to live fully in Christ. It is the only path to true freedom. Disobedience means that radical surgery must be performed or else there will be no life left to the body.

The other difficult thing is that the choice is up to us. Our Lord leaves us free to decide, and then leaves us to the consequences of our own decisions.

Who Knew?

We have had a heavy duty controversy going on in our Diocese over the last month or so. I think its one that is unlikely to occur in any other diocese in the country. I’ve been trying to draw some useful conclusions from it all, but to tell the truth it seems like there are no winners, only losers.

Some background is in order. As most people are aware, Colorado Springs is known as the Vatican City of the Evangelical World. There is any number of Evangelical organizations headquartered here including Focus on the Family, The Navigators, Campus Crusade for Christ, among others. Ted Haggard, a very well known Evangelical preacher, pastors the New Life mega-church with, I think, nearly fifteen thousand members, and it is New Life Church that lies at the heart of the controversy. It seems that nearly a third of those who attend New Life are practicing Catholics.

This statistic surfaced in a newspaper story in which the executive assistant to the Bishop, Peter Howard, was interviewed by a reporter from our local newspaper. In the interview Howard made the point that Catholics should not attend Protestant worship services. A follow up story on the controversy in yesterday’s paper detailing Howard’s resignation had the following quote from the original article:

“Such ‘active participation’ in a Protestant liturgical service, therefore, acts contrary to our faith which professes fundamentally different beliefs in critical ecclesiological and theological areas,� Howard wrote.

(I recall that Howard’s remarks occurred in an interview in the Colorado Springs Gazette, however yesterday’s story said Howard made these comments in a story in the diocesan newspaper.)

There has been a tremendous hubbub in both Catholic and Protestant circles in town ever since the story appeared. Those opposed to Howard’s position claimed that “ecumenical� relations between Protestants and Catholics have been gravely harmed. Catholics who attend those Protestant services are also in an uproar. Soon after the interview was published, the bishop issued a written apology essentially disavowing Howard’s remarks.

The consequences of all this have been stunning. At the height of the controversy a priest who was the Chancellor for the diocese and the Parochial Vicar for my parish, resigned his active ministry in disagreement with the article. And yesterday the story in the paper reported that Howard himself resigned on October 31.

All this from one story (interview) that Howard himself probably did not think very important.

I hardly know what to make of all this, except to take it as evidence of our fallen nature. When I read the original story, I wasn’t so surprised at what Howard said, as I was at the statistic showing the number of Catholics in this town who attend both Protestant and Catholic services each week. I wonder what is behind this? I wonder if it’s true. I mean, what would drive that many Catholics to attend New Life Church and attend Mass on a regular basis?

Then, there is the question as to why Catholics found Howard’s comments so controversial. I thought when I read the article that, politically speaking, Howard wasn’t using a lot of common sense in making those remarks so publicly, but still, I didn’t find them all that controversial. He didn’t say these people would be excommunicated, he just said they shouldn’t do it because, in effect, their attendance at Protestant services showed their lack of concern over the differences in theology between Protestant and Catholic Christianity.

Anyway, the end result is, the bishop has lost his executive assistant, the diocese has lost a good, and much needed priest, and relations between Protestants and Catholics have been strained, at least for the time being. All this over one interview in the local newspaper. I bet poor Bishop Sheridan is wondering what hit him.

I have stumbled across a blog, Communio Sanctorum, being done by a group of Protestants; I think they are primarily of the Baptist persuasion, although they have just added one Catholic writer. I find the effort highly interesting and refreshing. I highly recommend a visit to the site. The reason I find this the site so refreshing is that it represents an effort on the part of a group of Christians to get to the Truth, a very rare commodity these days. They are studying not only the foundational documents of Protestantism, but also the teachings of the Church. This is all too rare today and I think it an important effort. The site, I hesitate to call it a blog, is set up in the format of a theological journal but is not so scholarly that the ordinary reader cannot benefit from the work.

The post that caught my attention was one by one of the authors of the site who is just now in the process of reading the document by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC), The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. I think his reaction is the same as mine would have been had I stumbled across it while still a Presbyterian:

"What I find highly ironic is the way that Protestants like to portray the Roman Catholic Church as biblically illiterate, when the fact is that they are doing a much better job of synthesizing biblical scholarship and pastoral instruction than any Protestant denomination. I really question whether any Evangelical denomination would have the ecclesial resources to put together a work of this kind of sophistication. If they did, no doubt the eyes of many pastors would simply glaze over in the attempt to read it. In the Evangelical world, the church and the academy operate in separate realms (which is why Christian apologetics is in such a sorry state), whereas in the Roman Catholic Church, the academy is able to serve as a help to the Church. Though this does not always work that way, the structures are at least in place to enable it to do so."

I have been reading some things lately, things that I have just seemed to accidentally stumble onto, that have reminded me of my own conversion process. This post is one of them. What I now understand as a Catholic, and did not understand during most of my life as a Protestant, is just the conundrum written about in this post, and this became the central issue in my conversion to the Church.

If you think about it, it is not so hard to understand why this document could not be produced by any of the major Protestant denominations. It is not a lack of resources, nor a disconnect between the Church and the academy. It is part of the fundamental nature of Protestantism itself.

When the Reformation started, the core denominations formulated “Confessions�, or statements of faith. These were clear documents of the beliefs held by that denomination. (There are links to the texts of these documents on the Communiowebsite.) Over the last few decades, at least in my own denomination, the 1646 Westminster Confession of faith has been studiously and increasingly ignored. I doubt many of today’s Presbyterians have ever bothered to read it, much less understand it. Beyond these confessions, however, and as a core tenant of the faith, the individual believer has been cast adrift, every man for himself. It is central to being a Protestant that any interpretation of Scripture is up to the individual; there is no need for a Church with a real teaching authority.

This being the case, it isn’t possible for a document such as The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church to be produced by any of the major Protestant denominations. It isn’t even necessary; every man is his own authority and can trust the Holy Spirit to guide him to a correct understanding of Scripture. The irony is there, but not hard to understand. If one of the main denominations of Protestantism, say the Presbyterians, were to produce such a document, it would only be considered one opinion among many. Other Christians, and even Presbyterians, are free to say, “Well, that may be true for you, but it’s not for me.�

The way this became obvious to me is what happened over the course of about eighteen months in my own local Presbyterian church. In that relatively short time, the teaching went from solidly orthodox, Bible-based, Christian truth, to heterodox, unorthodox, secular, and almost sinful propaganda. There was what appeared to be a serious attempt to remove God from the picture altogether. For a church that claimed both versions of Christina teaching were solidly Bible based was clearly an untenable situation, both intellectually and spiritually. That is what triggered my short trip back to Rome.

The thing that makes the PBC document so special is that it is produced by a teaching Church. It is not an academic exercise in support of the Church; it is the Church exercising its inspired authority to guide the faithful in the way of truth. It is doing for the believer what he cannot do for himself without a great deal of study and effort.

The PBC document is wonderfully rich in terms of insight and understanding; it is a gift of the Church to all believers. The other wonderful thing is that there are so many of these documents produced by the Church, documents that both Protestants and Catholics can benefit from in reading and understanding. From the Catechism, going through the documents of Vatican II, to the Encyclical Letters of John Paul II, there are documents enough to study and pray over for a lifetime. That, to me, is what Church is all about.

I applaud the effort of the writers over at Communio to get back to the true teachings of Christianity. I have to wonder if this will not lead some of them to the Church, but even if it doesn’t this is a great effort and I hope a good many Christians will spend some time sharing their journey.