Posted on 06/10/2007 3:02:20 PM PDT by NYer
Many modern people have the notion that the principal mission of the Catholic Church is to impose belief on unbelievers. The reality is that most of its time is spent trying to restrain belief in everything from spoon-bending to the aliens who allegedly speak to us through a cat in Poughkeepsie.
The riptides and cross-currents of religious enthusiasm in American culture are kaleidoscopic and dizzying. Cradle Catholics can be forgiven for just ignoring the whole thing and many of them do. But it’s still worth taking into account because some religious trends can have decided real-world effects.
Some of the effects of unrestrained belief can be amusing.
For instance, after five centuries of being told by Protestant polemicists that we “Romanists” do not trust the saving grace of Jesus Christ and ignorantly seek salvation by the works of the law, it is a weird thing for a Catholic to see the spectacle of kooky apocalyptic Protestants eagerly excited about the birth of red heifers because this will (they hope) be the prelude to rebuilding the Temple of Solomon and the re-institution of the Mosaic sacrificial system. Just how that Temple will be rebuilt when the Dome of the Rock is situated on the site of the Temple is not quite as clearly worked out.
Which brings me to something just as kooky, but less amusing.
Recently, James Dobson, a leading Evangelical and a usually sensible man, hosted on his show one Joel Rosenberg, author of something called Epicenter: Why Current Rumblings in the Middle East Will Change Your Future. Rosenberg claims to know “what the Bible says” about what is happening in the Mideast and is not shy about making “predictions regarding the fate of the Middle East regarding issues such as Iran’s nuclear threats against Israel, the arms race and ultimately ... Armageddon.” Here’s a snippet:
Dobson: “Well, Joel, let’s explain to everybody how Ezekiel 38 turns out, because Israel is about to be attacked, and a huge number of troops from Russia and Iran are coming toward Israel to destroy it, and what happens?”
Rosenberg: “Well, God is going to move. You won’t find in the Scriptures that the United States is coming to rescue Israel or the European Union, but God says he is going to supernaturally intervene — we’re talking about fire from heaven, a massive earthquake, diseases spreading through the enemy forces. It is going to be such a clear judgment against the enemies of Israel that Ezekiel 39 says that it will take seven months to bury all the bodies of the slain enemies of Israel. “
Such standard-issue Evangelical prophetic cocksureness is an excellent example of why a magisterium is so useful and necessary.
Not only does the magisterium help us know what is essential to the faith, it also helps us remain free of what is unessential. For the various species of Protestantism, in addition to denying real biblical truths such as the Real Presence or infant baptism, also have a tendency to invent “biblical truths” that do not exist and impose them by means of a sort of cultural pressure via charismatic preachers with pet theories who, in their own sphere, are granted an infallibility the Pope could never dream of.
Now, a Catholic is quite free to have a kooky private reading of Ezekiel 38-39 as a prophecy of the “coming resurgent Soviet Union” and its alliance with Muslims, communist Chinese or whoever, all in a vast Cecil B. DeMille battle against Israel. The Church has all sorts of room for eccentrics, and everybody needs a hobby.
But a Catholic is not free to go around telling everybody that “this is the clear teaching of the Bible” and demand it be believed. For the fact is, this kooky theory is emphatically not the clear teaching of the Bible, nor does it have any sanction whatsoever from the Church, the tradition, the Fathers, the councils or the popes. It is a pure novelty we can and should ignore.
What we should not ignore is Rosenberg’s claim that, “Given the events going on in our world today, people at the Pentagon, people at the CIA, people at the White House are asking to sit down and talk about these issues, to understand the Biblical perspective, because it is uncanny what is happening out there and it deserves some study.”
I suspect that Rosenberg is exaggerating his clout with the big cheeses in DC. I doubt that the Pentagon’s intel meetings are dominated by exegeses of Ezekiel 38.
But I do think it matters if a significant portion of the American polity drinks in such bizarre theories as if they were God’s revealed Truth.
Ideas have consequences, especially crazy ones. Most crazy ideas do no harm.
Crazy ideas about the Middle East, backed by the force of arms, stand a better than average chance of killing millions.
They certainly were super reluctant to involve an outsider—me.
Yep!
I later had to warn him that if he persisted in his stances that God was likely to take him out of this life . . . he persisted . . . and 30 days or so after the warning, he died of a brain anyeurism.
And I sent a tornado at my ex-husband & his girlfriend, but didn't have the heart to see it through. LOL
Was an awesome year or so experience. Super humbling.
I bet!
A sweet newly born-again friend of mine shared the following with me yesterday; I'd never heard this truth put in these words before! -
Pray...and get out of the way.
Everyone's comments have also brought to mind the notion that faith has an "unreasonable effectiveness" to it, and that reason can not be divorced from truth without becoming something other than reason. "Reason" and "reasoning" are not always the same thing, perhaps.
But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He answered and said to them, “Why are you reasoning in your hearts?"Also found these:
~Luke 5:22
I do not believe that you are right about this. You use the examples of miracles and the actions of the Holy Spirit. A miracle may appear to contradict reason, in that it is a supernatural event in our natural world. But all reason bases itself on a set of premises (if the premise is wrong, often the conclusion is wrong, witness most of modern politics devoid of God as a premise). Anyway, simply apply the premise that God exists, that God is free to act as he sees fit in this world and outside of it, and miracles flow naturally, and reasonably from that premise. Do we deny God's sovereignty and free will? If the answer is no, then miracles are entirely reasonable, and in fact the assertion that there are no miracles becomes unlikely.
Does this mean we rely on our reason solely? No. The Holy Spirit acts and if we are blessed to be the one that the Spirit acts upon then we know things in a way that a logical argument cannot prove. I think that the simple argument for God that there must be a first cause, since all things have a cause, then since logically the first thing must have a cause, and since it cannot, then the "first thing" is supernatural, outside of our law of cause and effect, and is God. Did I believe that simple argument? Yes, tentatively, in an "isn't that interesting but there is no proof the first cause thinks, it could just be an unthinking force" sort of way. Then the Holy Spirit acted and there is no question now for me regarding the existence of God. You can construct similar proofs for God as a thinking, ordering being. But logic doesn't take you to faith. For me, there is surely a God because he touched me.
"I think therefore I am." Few people know the next step in the proof, because reason only takes you about that far. So reason isn't our only way of knowing, but there is no contradiction in faith and reason. It all depends on the premises you apply when reasoning.
And you do know there isn't some group somewhere in the Vatican with "Magisterium" on the office door.
How do you feel about "pastor"?
Marker for 24 hours.
Your assigned reading:
Fides et Ratio, by the late great J2P2
AND
Benedict XVI’s Regensberg Lecture (the one the Muslims loved so much.)
I expect Reports on each from each of you by the end of next week
DISmissed!
But the computer would gag on "man is not saved by faith alone ...", the one place in Scripture where the phrase "faith alone" appears.
Just sayin' ....
Well, there's not much I don't miss.
But I'm pretty sure that I describing the beliefs of people with whom I am conversing as a list of fantasies is NOT humble.
Absolutely!
This idea is self-contradictory, because all faith propositions (all truth claims) are logical formulations or formulations based in reason. If reason is not absolutely trustworthy, then faith propositions must be untrustworthy.
As Pope John Paul II stated so eloquently,
Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).
Yes, faith transcends reason, but it does not contradict reason. The Trinity transcends reason, but it does not contradict it. IOW, we cannot derive the existence of the Trinity from our observation of nature, but we can know of its existence if it is revealed to us by God. But we can know through reason that the Trinity does not contradict reason.
My first reaction was that if one believes that faith cannot contradict reason, he will not experience miracles.
How do miracles contradict reason? A miracle is not a contradiction. We can know the existence of God through reason, and that he is the Creator of all things. As the Creator of all things, he can suspend the laws of nature as He sees fit.
Another example is predestination and free will. God speaks both prophesies and commandments in Scripture. Both are true because God spoke them.
Again, there is no contradiction. Because God knows the future does not mean that we lack free will. Consider this example. I'm up on a balcony watching someone walking toward an open manhole. I can see that the person is going to fall in, and the person does. But I did not force the person to fall in or override his free will. There is a tension between predestination and free will, and ultimately a great mystery, but not an absolute contradiction.
The Aristotlean Law of the Excluded Middle (either/or) does not apply to God.
Not sure what you mean.
Reason and faith are complementary.
Yes.
But reason cannot substitute for faith.
Yes. Faith is superior to reason, but dependent on reason.
Reason also does not substitute for Spiritual discernment or divine revelations.
Yes and no. A true revelation may be superior to knowledge derived naturally. But false spiritual discernment and false supernatural (demonic) revelations will contradict right reason.
For instance, reason didn’t help Nicodemus (John 3) to understand that we must be born again. Nor did it help all those disciples who walked away (John 6) when Christ told them He is the bread of life, that we must drink His blood and eat His flesh. Both Truths can only be Spiritually discerned.
These are not so much cases of intellectual difficulties, but a lack of trust in God. Truth, when followed consistently, must always lead to Christ, since Christ is Truth itself.
Acts 17:23Likewise, that Jesus Christ is Lord is a divine revelation. Teeth-gritting, covering one’s ears and shutting one’s eyes, stomping the ground and repeating over and again that Jesus Christ is Lord will not bring the Truth alive within anyone.For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
True, but again, this fact does not represent a contradiction. This is a failure of will, not the intellect.
And again, the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord is a truth that transcends reason, but not contradictory to reason, since it is logically possible for the Creator of the universe to assume an additional inferior form (human form/nature).
That is a gigantic assumption, and not really consistent with the way baptism is portrayed elsewhere.
THE 95 THESES by Martin Luther
1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, "Repent" (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
Seems to me that Protestants incorporate "works" into repentence, while Catholics consider repentence a "work." There, I've solved the justification divide. Let's just declare it a mystery, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya.
James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
It's a "saving faith" that is important which incorporates repentence and works naturally. Chicken and egg question or am I missing something (everything)? Maybe I'll just join Old Reggie and start attending a Unitarian Church along with the snake handlers, yoga instructors, buddhist housewives, and left-wing activists.
Well, not really.
[Origin: 1250–1300; ME < AF vicare; OF vicaire < L vicÄ�rius a substitute, n. use of adj.; see vicarious]
How do you feel about "pastor"?
Well, of course it doesn't matter how I feel. Some terms for roles in the church are given:
Ephesians 4:10-12 (New International Version)
10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.
Comparing this to Matthew 23, one sees the difference is between people being perceived as having special status and importance over others (bad) vs. people working humbly to build up others as servants (good).
It's also about people taking authority upon themselves (bad) vs. people not seeking "entitlement," but realizing they are fallible facilitators while God is only in authority.
It's also about people placing themselves and their own identity between another individual and God (bad) vs. people drawing all attention of spiritual interest, adulation, and exhaltation (worship) to God and making sure they don't get in the way by eclipsing any of His light with any other individual (good) "Get your head out of my sunshine!"
In Christ, the attention is on and the appeal is to God, His and our Father, by the power of the Holy Spirit -- not upon any other person. The messenger has no authority. He only conveys authority when he is bringing the message.
The "ruler" or measuring tool here is the Word of God Itself/Himself, which is given in Scripture directly to all of us. The "ruler" is not another, who interprets and dispenses Scripture for the rest of us.
The interpreter of the Word of God is the Holy Sprit and those in Christ are, being in Christ, granted all the authority God gives any man.
My impression is that it is some protestant organizations where a person appoints himself or herself as pastor.
So while clearly there is a difference about how a call is discerned and there have been abuses, If you had come to me when I was in the Episcopal Church and told me I took authority on myself I would have laughed with astonishment! It was in every way conferred.
I couldn't agree more about drawing attention to oneself. I always used to say the object of the game was to be a window, not a wall, and the best windows are invisible.
I would say that the oft cited passage from Timothy is all about dispensing Scripture (dispensing, not rationing) and though it refers to the OT, it is still an ordained minister being given instructions from the one who ordained him about how to use the Scripture in preaching the Gospel. I'm not saying my take is conclusive, but I think it's at least a possible reading of the passage.
I do not find bold face any more persuasive than regular type and I disagree with your last sentence, and my disagreement based on, ah, Eph. 4:10-12, I Cor 12, Acts 1:15-end,6:6, and so forth.
MD, you are saying that there is no difference between someone being a representative for God and being a substitute for God.
There must be no authority between God and any human being. No moon to get in the way of the sun, nor any prism to break up the light.
Leaders in the body of Christ, lead others to Christ. Pretty simple. Sure, an earthly organization needs organizers, but the church on earth is not to have selective dispensers, only conduits “rightly dividing” but making all the riches available.
That being the case, to your apt Scriptures, I’d add both the Word and the Spirit of I John 2:19-27 — both the particulars and the principles.
There is only room for one leader for a man’s inner self. Accept no substitutes.
...I disagree with your last sentence....
What part of my having directly dispensed fullfillment in Christ, in whom is the fullness and authority of God, God being my only portion -- would you disagree with?
It is much easier, however, if I can get the poster to do it for me. :-)
Not every one gets all the gifts. SOME are teachers, not all. If SOME are teachers, some are students. And so forth mutatis mutandis.
Thank you so much DaveMSmith for this beautiful excerpt from Swedenborg!
It seems to me faith leads the internal acknowledgement of truth. For God is truth; the created soul has truth innately, for God made us in His image and likeness. And has placed us in the creation, a divine work of incredible beauty that testifies to the glory of the Creator, ever manifesting the truth of God's creative and sustaining Word, the Logos.
But truth is often smothered by dogma. Where God wants us to live in direct communion with Himself and His truth (for which we are equipped to be responsive partners in the divine-human dialogue), a dogma is a reduction or "hypostatization" of truth, not the living truth itself.
If that makes any sense! :^) My two cents, FWIW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.