The Accidental Catholic

Catholic Exchange ^ | July 1, 2006 | Fr. Paul Scalia

[NYer]

		During His earthly life and in His small area of the world, our Lord was what we moderns would call a celebrity. Scripture tells us that crowds came to Him from all over — crowds so great that they blocked the streets and doorways (Mk 2:2) and so demanding that He and His Apostles could not even eat (Mk 3:20).
Knowing how insistent and unruly crowds can be, we can easily imagine that people must have pushed in upon our Lord, bumping and jostling one another and Him. Some surely came for reasons of faith of devotion. But human nature being what it is, others probably came only to see the local celebrity, to marvel at His miracles or just to follow the crowd. So when on one occasion our Lord in the midst of a crowd asks, “Who has touched my clothes?” His disciples reasonably respond, “You see how the crowd is pressing upon you, and yet you ask, ‘Who touched me?’” (Mk 5:30-31). With all the people pushing, elbowing and shoving, it could have been anyone. Yet our Lord asks the question for a reason. Most people in the crowd touched Him and His clothes because they could not help it — that’s the way crowds are. They bumped up against him accidentally, or perhaps touched Him just out of curiosity. But someone in the crowd touched Him for a different reason: the woman “afflicted with hemorrhages for twelve years” (Mk 5:25), who thought, “If I but touch His clothes, I shall be cured” (Mk 5:28). She “came up behind Him in the crowd and touched His cloak” (Mk 5:27). Unlike the rest of the crowd, she touched Him not accidentally, in the jostling of people, but deliberately, in faith. We do well to keep in mind the distinction between the crowd and the woman — between accidentally bumping into our Lord and deliberately touching Him in faith. It is the difference between knowing about our Lord and knowing Him personally; between proximity to Christ and intimacy with Him; between going through the motions and striving for holiness. And either one is possible for us. Just as then there were some who accidentally brushed up against our Lord in all the commotion, so today there is the “Accidental Catholic.” He might know all about our Lord, about His life and miracles. He might be familiar with the Mass and Catholic devotions — the prayers, responses, hymns, gestures, etc. But he never deliberately invests himself in them. He recites the Creed and goes to Communion, but without reflection or thought — simply because the rest of the crowd does and because it happens every Sunday. He only bumps into our Lord. They happen to be in the same place at the same time. He confuses proximity to our Lord for intimacy with Him, and Catholic “things” for Catholic faith. Each of us — and especially we “cradle Catholics” — is in danger of becoming an “Accidental Catholic.” We should examine ourselves often on this point, asking whether we are in fact reaching out to Christ or just running into Him. The solution, of course, is not to stop this contact with the Lord — to end our prayers, devotions, Communions, etc. Rather, it is to do and make them deliberately, as acts of faith. Outwardly, the woman with hemorrhages may have touched our Lord in much the same way as anyone else. The difference was that, unlike the crowd, she invested herself in that action. She placed all her hope, her entire future — indeed, her very self — in that one touch. So also our practice of the Faith, although routine, should never be rote. Every prayer we utter, every sign of the Cross we make, every Communion we receive, should be as a hand reaching out to Christ — seeking the power that goes out from Him (cf. Mk 5:30).

[Judith Anne]

Thanks. That's the way I read it.

[NYer]

She venerated the garment because it was worn by Christ; that is to say, her faith was expressed through work, and delivered salvation even outside of Christ's conscious involvement (v.30).

You are quite correct except that He was consciously involved. He asked: "who touched my garment"?.

Perhaps you are magnifying this episode into something much bigger than it actually was. This is one of the Gospels read during Lent in the Maronite Church. The message is actually quite simple. It is her faith that has healed her, not our Lord's garment. The woman believed that by touching the 'hem' of his garment, she would be healed. That touch transmitted her faith to our Lord who asked "who" had touched his garment. In a crowd of this size, many had touched his garment but this woman recognized Him as the Messiah and connected that recognition to the act of touching an article of clothing the He wore. She might just as easily have said "if I touch His hair", or "His hand", or "His toe" ... the point quite simply is that her faith in Him was transmitted by the touch and He responded to it, unlike all the others gathered around our Lord that day.

[Forest Keeper]

We believe that it is the faith accompanied by action,-- formed faith,-- in this case venerating Christ's garment, that "makes whole", that is, saves.

OK, I think I see where you are coming from now. It all depends on what "makes whole" means. In the Douay verse 34 the word "whole" is said twice and very closely together. I can see a reasonable interpretation that they could have different meanings in this context. In my version (NIV) it says: "He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering." But when I checked the KJV, it appears to agree much more with you. Therefore, if this context is correct, then I would agree with what NYer said: "It is her faith that has healed her, not our Lord's garment."

I have not heard before of the distinction between declarative faith and formed faith. From what you said, I gather that the woman, before she actually reached out and touched the garment, was on a path to hell had she dropped dead before she could reach Jesus. I really don't get that impression from this passage in any translation. What kind or number of works are required to move from one type of faith to the other? I ask because I find it unlikely that this woman's "first" work, given what we are told about her faith, was to touch Jesus' garment. What is the perfection mechanism in terms of works?

[Judith Anne]

Just a personal remark here, and certainly not theologically educated:

Like the woman, when I sought Christ it was for my own reasons, and I too believed that He, and only He, could heal me--that if I could touch Him, or something intimately associated with Him, I would indeed be made whole.

That inner hope, and that hunger for wholeness, drove me to follow Him in the crowd, and just try to have a small touch, and that was the action I took based on that hope and faith.

To encounter Him in the Eucharist for the first time as an adult--was to receive so much more than I was able to envision at the time, so much more than I can understand even today. Now, we see darkly...

[NYer]

Excellent point, beautifully made. As catholics, we can "touch" our Lord, present in the Holy Eucharist, and be touched by Him in return.

[annalex]

He was consciously involved

Jesus felt the power proceed from Him, and became consciously involved at that point, but by that time the woman was already healed.

It is her faith that has healed her, not our Lord's garment.

One does not exclude the other. It is true that others touched the garment without a similar effect, but it is also true that her faith found a focal point in the touching of the garment. It could have been anything else, yes.

[al_c]

Great read! Thanks for posting this.

[annalex]

The Greek for the "made whole" in v 34 is "sesoken" and the Latin is "salvam fecit".

The second "whole" is not "whole" at all, but is "healthy". The Greek is "ygies" and the Latin is "sana" (familiar to us as "hygiene" and "sanitation").

So, the Latin and the Greek match, but the English of both Douay and KJV achieves the correct meaning only in context, "whole of thy plague/disease".

As we concentrate on the first "whole", we note that both the dictionary meaning and the gospel usage employ the word to mean "saved" in medical or otherwise physical sense, but a related "sothenai" is used in the supernatural sense. In Latin the distinctions disappears as both are transalted by St. Jerome as "salvus". Both Douay and King James render it sometimes as "whole" and sometimes as "saved".

I gather that the woman, before she actually reached out and touched the garment, was on a path to hell had she dropped dead before she could reach Jesus. I really don't get that impression from this passage in any translation. What kind or number of works are required to move from one type of faith to the other?

We don't know either way about her before she touched the garment, but if we assume that her disease represents sin, then she was burdened heavily by sin and was not saved in the spiritual sense. We also know that no fixed number of works of veeneration (or charity) produces well-formed faith, -- just like, borrowing your baseball analogy, no number of bases taken delivers victory. This is the meaning of St. Paul's epistles to Romans and Galatians, as well as the parable of the workers at the vineyard, that works by themselves do not save. But they form the faith.

The distinction between declarative faith and formed faith is very important in the dispute about sola fide. This is a good article about it:

Whether a Catholic will condemn the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term "faith" is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19, as every non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone).

However, if the term "faith" is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.

A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata. Adding the word "formed" to clarify the nature of the faith in "sola fide" renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.

Justification by Faith Alone.

Conversion can be instantaneous, like that of the Good Thief, or St. Paul's, or this woman's. It could also be gradual and filled with setbacks, like St. Peter's or St. Thomas's. But fast or slow, it has to change the person.

[NeoCaveman]

ping

[xsmommy]

he's at my best friend's church and she and her daughter are always thrilled when he says Mass bc they love his sermons.

[Forest Keeper]

Like the woman, when I sought Christ it was for my own reasons, and I too believed that He, and only He, could heal me--that if I could touch Him, or something intimately associated with Him, I would indeed be made whole. ...

Thank you for sharing that, Judith Anne. My experience has been that most, if not all, seekers search out Christ "for their own reasons". This is only human and it was the same for me. Even if we had a particular need at the time, in the broader sense we were searching for something we did not have, but desperately wanted. Christ Himself.

I am very glad that Christ has made you whole, as only He can. We believers truly have much to be thankful for, and much to look forward to... :)

[Forest Keeper]

Thank you for the etymology of the word "whole" in verse 34. It's funny because it seems the NIV is the only version that recognized that the two "whole"s were different words in English. :)

We don't know either way about her before she touched the garment, but if we assume that her disease represents sin, then she was burdened heavily by sin and was not saved in the spiritual sense.

That's a bit of a stretch for me. I see her as someone who really did have a physical malady. She was really hurting, and looking for someone to help her. To me, the beauty in this story is in the demonstration of her faith, not with the baggage of being "super" undeserving with heavy sin upon her, but with the true faith of a regular person, a good person. We can all relate to being sick for no reason, and this woman was sick for many many years. She teaches us exactly what to do when we are physically sick and hurting. If ever faced with a long sickness like that, then would that I have her faith.

This is the meaning of St. Paul's epistles to Romans and Galatians, as well as the parable of the workers at the vineyard, that works by themselves do not save. But they form the faith.

I am not sure how you are using the word "form". If you mean what I would call sanctification, then I am with you. But in the context of the woman, you appear to be saying that she did not have "true" (formed) faith until she did the "work" of touching Jesus' garment. If so, then works are necessary before initial salvational status? In infant Baptism, my understanding is that the benefits of the work by the parents are accorded to the child and he is initially saved. But is the actual credit for doing the "work" also accorded to the child? I could see someone (parent) giving away the benefits of his own work, but I don't see how one (baby) could take credit for the work of another.

The distinction between declarative faith and formed faith is very important in the dispute about sola fide. This is a good article about it: ...

Thanks, that was a great article. From what I could understand, what you would call "unformed faith", I would call no faith at all. Also, what I would call "faith" you would call faith, hope, and charity (except for me the timing of the works would be different, i.e. works come after salvation). And so, what you would call "formed faith" I would just call faith. (I hope that's right :) Anyway, this was a very interesting read. If you haven't already posted it, I'll bet folks on the other thread would also be interested in reading this. Heck, it could even be its own thread. :)

[Judith Anne]

I know you're exactly right--Christ DOES seek us, and call us by name, and bring us to Him. He loves us and wants us to be His intimate friends, His brothers and sisters...He takes pleasure in our company, and not only loves us unto His death, but likes us in little daily ways. In Him we move and live and have our being.

I really like talking about this, but I hesitate...all of it is so incredibly important, I just don't want to open up a can of internet worms, so to speak, or get in big hairy theological discussions, or have someone laughing at the seeming contradictions which really are NOT contradictory in actual experience, or have people making fun of the deepest Mystery of existence...

For instance, I have rheumatoid arthritis, but I'm healed. Yes, I have the illness in my flesh, but that's just the way of humanity, every one of us our bodies fail and we die, but I am healed, and whole in Christ...see what I mean?

I sought Christ, but He called me first...another seeming contradiction, which isn't, really...

Anyway...

[Judith Anne]

Then, remarkably! we have shared our faith. Some things just are too big for words.

God bless you, FRiend.

[Forest Keeper]

Good to see you again, Jerry Built! I hope you are well.

How would you explain the experience which seems almost the opposite of the woman seeking out and touching the cloak of Our Lord? By this I mean that in other cases it seems that it is the Lord who is seeking out the person and drawing that person to Himself --in other words, it is Jesus who initiates the events that leads the person to Himself ...

Well, since Judith Anne's post to me was announced as being non-theological, I decided it would be right and proper not to get into the nitty gritty of it on those terms. But since you asked ... :) When I said that all seekers search out God "for their own reasons", I meant that is certainly what the human experience is. That was my personal experience. However, the whole truth, IMHO, is that it is ALWAYS God who draws His children to Him. So, we can ask the question of what caused the woman to seek out Christ? For me, as a Reformer, the truly important matter is not that I chose (sought after) Christ, but that He chose me first. Here is a short excerpt from (then) Cardinal Ratzinger's Homily at John Paul II's Funeral Mass:

How often, in his letters to priests and in his autobiographical books, has he spoken to us about his priesthood, to which he was ordained on November 1, 1946. In these texts he interprets his priesthood with particular reference to three sayings of the Lord.

First: "It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain" (John 15:16). The second saying is: "A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (John 10:11). And then: "As the Father loves me, so I also love you. Remain in my love" (John 15:9). In these three sayings we see the heart and soul of our Holy Father. He really went everywhere, untiringly, in order to bear fruit, fruit that lasts.(emphasis added)

So, since I think that only the elect bear fruit that remains, that means that God chose His elect before they chose Him. (However, on this point I do believe that Alex and I disagree.)

Therefore, I would "guess" that the woman in the story was already "saved", in the Reformed sense of the word, because of her faith AND that she was drawn to Jesus for her need by "God". I say "God" because the context of the text does not sound like it was the man Jesus who was doing the summoning, that came from a divine level.

We also see Paul with his thorn. I think it still works like this today. When we get sick or are hurting where do we turn? The true Christian always turns to God in time of need. These stories help to remind me where to go when I'm hurting like that. And at those times I really need reminding! :)

[Judith Anne]

;-D

I really enjoy reading your posts, they're thoughtful, and so well-written...pardon me, please about the "theology" remarks. I just have to keep my attention on the Eucharist, because I'm easily distracted and confused.

So, I read your post several times, and it's a good one. Thanks for the ping, and God bless.