Posted on 03/16/2009 1:36:46 PM PDT by NYer
Many cradle Catholics I know look at the moral conflicts tearing apart the mainline denominations with sadness, but as a convert from one of them (the Episcopal Church, the most notoriously divided one of them all), I think this is not quite the right response.
We will feel sad at the sight of beloved Christian friends suffering as their churches divide, but we might be heartened to see that because these conflicts express flaws in the original design, they will encourage some to greater friendship, if not full reconciliation, with the Catholic Church.
The sadness we feel will be like the sadness you feel on seeing a pretty old house finally falling down because it was badly built in the first place — built on sand, say — and has been coming apart for most of its life. You’re sad, even when you know it will be replaced by a much better house.
You know your neighbors will miss their old home, but you also know they’ll be happier in a house whose basement doesn’t flood, whose roof doesn’t leak, whose windows don’t let out the heat in the winter, whose pipes don’t clog every other day.
You also know they wouldn’t move into the new house until the old one collapsed. The house held too many memories, was too comfortable, even if damp, and leaving it was too hard.
Unfudgeable Differences
My own former tradition, for example, developed its own rebellion against the Church by a series of compromises and fudges and mutual agreements to look the other way. It was a house built on sand, but it has stood for a long time. At last, real, unfudgeable differences are forcing their various parties apart.
The question of authority, for one, was never really settled. The Anglican founders declared their belief in the supremacy of Scripture but left unanswered the question of who was to decide what Scripture actually taught. The founders thought this would be obvious. This arrangement worked all right when good, middle-class Englishmen and Americans agreed on the practical matters, until a few decades ago, when they started disagreeing about them and asserting contradictory views of what Scripture taught.
No Anglican authority could convincingly declare who was right.
Some found in the Scriptures the traditional view that ministers must be male, while others found in them a new view (which they claimed to have been the original view, long suppressed): that ministers could also be female. Both sides offered substantial biblical arguments for their position. Many conservatives came to approve the innovation, while a shrinking minority held out. Revealingly, perhaps, the evangelical wing, the one loudest in its declarations of belief in Scripture, has largely accepted the innovation.
In this case, Anglicans came, as they always had done, to an uncomfortable practical accommodation, with the few who couldn’t accept it, leaving — some for Rome, some for “Continuing Anglican” churches. But in the last few years, even that has come apart, with members of the shrunken minority denied ordination or pastorates because their view is “discriminatory.”
With the rise of arguments for homosexuality, they seem to have come to an innovation a large number of conservatives will never approve and, thus, a matter they can’t settle with a theological fudge or practical accommodation. Conservatives who accepted the Rev. Jane Doe won’t accept Mr. and Mr. John Doe.
Breaking Up
This is what happens when your body doesn’t have a magisterium. You might get along without one for a long time, as Anglicanism has, for a host of reasons. (One of which, not often noticed, is having the Catholic Church to hold the line for you.)
But when the disagreements finally become too great and too practical to avoid, you will see your church break up as painfully as we are now seeing world Anglicanism break up, into bodies each holding a particular reading of Scripture’s teaching in the controverted matter.
Even here you see problems, as the conservatives are deeply divided on the ordination of women, leading to the possibility of there being at least two conservative bodies separated from mainstream Anglicanism — and also from each other.
This is, as I said, reason to be heartened. Many of our mainline brothers will see that their churches should not have wound up as they have, and many of those will wonder whether the fault is in their founding, if their traditions were flawed from the beginning. Almost all of them will look at the Catholic Church with more sympathy than they had before, and some may begin to ask if she is indeed who she has said she is.
This has been true, at least, of Anglicanism. As a result of their inevitable conflict over the teaching of Scripture, one portion of conservative Anglicans are looking to Rome, some converting by themselves, but many (the Anglo-Catholic party) hoping for corporate reunion.
And other Anglicans, including many of the evangelicals, look at Rome with new respect and sympathy.
I have had evangelical friends say to me privately that for the first time in their lives they see the value of a magisterium and now wonder if the Catholic Church knows something about the nature of church they don’t. Few of them are likely to convert, but they like and will listen to the Church in a way they did not before.
Catholics who see where mainline conflicts can lead will anticipate a new fellowship with our separated brethren and the entrance of a number of them into full communion with the Church and, therefore, with us.
This explains why I think Catholics should be encouraged by the mainline churches’ problems. I know this seems cold-hearted or triumphalistic, but it isn’t. We are not interested in saying, “See, we were right!” — but excited by the possibility of finally being able to say, “Welcome home, good friend.”
You wrote:
“You are equivocating between the meaning of canonical Scripture, and the Bible.”
Nope. I am simply recognizing reality. Jerome’s views, for instance, were much more complicated than you realize because you haven’t studied the issue enough. The very act of including the books in his Bible showed an acknowledgment on his part that they were scripture to many people if not himself (and that wasn’t really the case anyway). Luther, on the other hand, cut books from both the Old and NEW TESTAMENT.
“It has been made perfectly clear that the Apocrypha was included in the aforementioned published Bibles, but that the Apocrypha included therein were explicitly not regarded as canonical Scripture, a fact that you tacitly admit by your express disagreement with Cajetan.”
My disagreement with Cajetan is as unimportant as his opinion. He produced no Bible and he excised no books from any Bible. His opinion was merely his opinion and it carried little or no weight in the Church even in his own century.
“Suit yourself, but your ad hominem is devoid of rational argumentation.”
I made no ad hominem attack. You claim not to be anti-Catholic. I have no reason whatsoever to believe you are not anti-Catholic. Noting that is not an ad hominem attack. If you had made a factual argument and I had attack your person, then that would be an ad hominem attack. I made no such attack.
“Maybe to you it doesn’t, but the logical consequence of the argument is that Gregory the Great misrepresented in written commentary (a commentary that he never retracted) the teaching and historical practice of the Church, which in my view is preposterous.”
What you consider preposterous is completely unimportant. The simple fact is that the view of Pope St. Gregory the Great too was more complicated than you are letting on. Here are quotes from him that show this to be the case:
Pride is of course the root of all evil, of which it is said, as Scripture bears witness: Pride is the beginning of all sin. (Sirach 10:26) Moreover; proliferating from this poisonous root as its first offspring are seven capital sins: vainglory, envy, anger malancholy, avarice, gluttony, lust. For because he grieved that we were held in bondage by these seven derivatives of pride, on that account our Redeemer, full of the spirit of sevenfold grace, joined spiritual battle for our liberation. St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 3, p. 85.
The former, it is said by Holy Scripture: Do not become like the horse and the mule which have no understanding (Psalm 31:9). The proud effort of the latter is blamed when it is said: Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability (Sirach 3:22). To the former it is said: Mortify your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, lust, eveil consupiscence (Col. 3:5), to the latter it is said: Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceipt (Col. 2:8) St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Book 1, Part 3, 21, p. 116
Hence it is that with difficulty is eternal rest attained by the powerful who are surrounded by numberless hosts of lieges and bound with the tight coils of a great variety of concerns. In this regard Scripture says A most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule. (Wisdom 12:6) Hence Truth says in the Gospel: Unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required (Luke 12:48). It rarely happens that those who possess gold strive for eternal rest, inasmuch as Truth himself says: How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God (Mt. 19:25). St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 4, 3, p. 133.
But, if your Holiness knew both what I referred to in my letter and what had been done, whether against John the presbyter or against Athanasius, monk of Isauria and presbyter, and wrote to me, I know not; what can I reply to this, since the Truth says through His Scripture, “The mouth that lieth slayeth the soul” (Wisd. i. 11) St. Gregory the Great, Book III, Epistle 13, NPNF2, vol. 12, p. 136.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St.%20Gregory%20the%20Great,%20Pope,%20[590-604,%20A.D.]
***Hmm, just like Mary Baker Eddy or Joseph Smith or Ted Haggard or Jimmy Swaggart are stewards of Christianity, right?
The only one I’ve ever heard of is Swaggart...unless Smith is the Mormon.
The difference between these and the Catholic “stewards” I brought up is that none of those mentioned by you are forming national policies!***
I see.
Jimmy Carter is a Baptist; Bill Clinton is a Baptist. George HW Bush is Episcopalian (?) and W is Methodist. Richard Nixon was a Quaker. Are you attempting to say that their national policies were formed and approved by their religious bodies?
The only one I’ve ever heard of is Swaggart...unless Smith is the Mormon.
Jimmy Carter is a Baptist; Bill Clinton is a Baptist. George HW Bush is Episcopalian (?) and W is Methodist. Richard Nixon was a Quaker.
Oh. The former names are "pen names" for the latter?
I don't believe Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, or Quakers claim they "own" Christianity.
I can't think of any religious group that pays as much attention to other religions as do Catholics. I never think about Catholics until I get on FR. I have no friends who mention the Catholics Church...except Catholics, and they aren't favorable very often.
***That’s it? That’s the proof?
There was far more proof at Fatima. There was far more proof at Guadalupe.
How long was it after Sinai that the Jews’ attention wandered yet again? You’ve avoided a lot of questions in our short exchange. Why?
Evidently you didn’t read the article.
At Sinai, for the one and only time in history, the invisible, unincarnate G-d spoke to some three million people. Not an angel. Not a ghost. Not a human being claiming to speak on behalf of, or to be, G-d.***
I’ll say it again: prove it. This article makes claims and provides no proof. Perhaps you are of the kind that thinks that repetition without proof equals proof. Wrong.
***This had never happened before and will never happen again. ***
Supposing it did happen. How do you know that it will never happen again?
***Sinai is the fulcrum of history. Moses is the father of all wise men, those who came before and those who have come (or will come) after. And the Torah given at Sinai in this absolutely unique fashion does not allow for—indeed, forbids—Israel to ever stray from the Torah. All the punishments that have befallen Israel have been for forsaking the Torah, not “rejecting the messiah.” ***
Short attention span, right? All these punishments handed down time after time after time. Are the Jews more powerful in their disobedience than God is in capturing their attention?
***Finally—your contempt for the Word of G-d is made manifest in the fact that you, who reject the miracles and supernatural phenomena of the Torah, accept those of Fatima and Guadalupe.***
Ahem. Where ever did I say that I accept Fatima and Guadalupe over the miracles of the Old Testament? You are making statements about my posts that I did not make.
***Please understand one thing: I love and fear the Biblical G-d, not the post-Biblical chr*stian “gxd.” ***
Oooh. The Bible, by the way, contains the 73 books that the Church says it does. The culmination in Jesus of the promises of the OT. The Bible contains both Old and New. Jesus is not a post Biblical gxd (whatever gxd is).
***We will both be judged by the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the G-d of whom you have such a low opinion and Whose Revelation you hold in such low regard. ***
Telling lies about me will not wear well on Judgement Day. I believe that the Revelation of God is the greatest thing that has happened to mankind, even greater than Creation itself. And that revelation is captured in the four Gospels, with commentary in the rest of the NT.
***And you actually think that you, with these hateful and ludicrous positions of yours, are going to convert me to chr*stianity? After all I suffered as a member of your Torah-denying (yet medieval miracle-affirming) church? Buddy, that ain’t a-gonna happen. ***
Your experiences do not deny the truth about the Church any more than being the victim of a crime in the United States denies the truth of the Constitution.
***’Nuff said!***
And, like everyone who has had enough, you keep coming back for more.
***I can’t think of any religious group that pays as much attention to other religions as do Catholics. I never think about Catholics until I get on FR. I have no friends who mention the Catholics Church...except Catholics, and they aren’t favorable very often.***
Actually, Catholics pay more attention to God. I have no idea of the favourability to the Church of the folks that you have chumship with, but that does not have any effect upon the Truth of God and His Church.
The theology of Christ is followed either rightly or wrongly. In order to follow it properly, it must be defined properly. The only authority to define the theology of Christ was passed from Him to the Church upon His word as outlined in Scripture.
Do you believe the Bible or not?
When did Catholics start Bible study?
My Catholic by birth, uncle-by-marriage, started going to a Protestant church in his late 60's because he wanted to study the Bible. He said he felt deprived because the Catholic Church didn't encourage Bible study because, "They don't want people interpreting the Bible. They want people to believe what they are told."
His words, not mine!
***Do you believe the Bible or not?
When did Catholics start Bible study? ***
Close on 2000 years ago. We continue to this day. There have been pockets of Catholics who simply didn’t. I cannot apologize for them.
***My Catholic by birth, uncle-by-marriage, started going to a Protestant church in his late 60’s because he wanted to study the Bible. He said he felt deprived because the Catholic Church didn’t encourage Bible study because, “They don’t want people interpreting the Bible. They want people to believe what they are told.” ***
Sad. Many people don’t get the difference between Biblical scholasticism in accordance to the authority of the Church, and simple laziness on the part of either certain clergy or laity.
***His words, not mine!***
Very sad. There are many Catholics here on FR that will show you differently.
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.