Theology, besides delving into the nature of God, is responsible for mapping human action and thought into categories and understandings of what is pleasing and displeasing to our Creator. It comprises moral theology as well as certain principles that are good and encouraged and other principles which are bad and to be discouraged.
I became a member of the Catholic Church after I was drawn to Her, not by theology but by spirituality; the spirituality of John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila. It was through them that I found that I was bound, as were they, by good and holy theology, dogma and practice. Otherwise, as they attested, their pursuits in prayer might lead to dangerous errors and the loss of their souls. For that reason, Teresa of Avila preferred as spiritual directors, the recently formed Jesuits who were both strong in spiritual mental prayer (or contemplative prayer) and in theology which they studied rather arduously. It was therefore a necessary burden to expose myself to theology in order to rightly pursue my spirituality. I became a teacher of the faith, and defender of the faith, not because I liked it but because I now understood its usefulness; nay, its necessity. Correct theology is the handmaid of a sound spirituality. You won’t get the latter until you either understand the former or have a spiritual director who does.
Theology has provided us with dogmas (that which must be accepted) as an aid to our salvation. Likewise it has provided us with the practices that enhance and bring to life these beliefs which we must hold. In the moral realm it tells us that which is serious sin as well as that which is immensely pleasing to God; the do’s and don’ts. It also, in many instances, gives us the background and reasons for doing certain things and avoiding certain things. To latch on to the do’s and reject the don’ts is as harmful as accepting the don’ts and rejecting the do’s. Both are there for our aid.
So the Church uses theology and practice to make our spiritual lives simpler and our decisions in life consonant with that which pleases God. It is not, therefore, the purpose of the Church to introduce confusion among us as to what is right or wrong, good or bad, laudable and despicable. It is to instill within us a means to acquire joy, love, reverence, honor, solemnity and peace. If these are not being produced or if they are being reduced to one or two of these then something is missing or something has become corrupt.
Therefore, theology spawns rules, rubrics and instructions for our devout practice and the devout practice of our priests who celebrate certain rites in the Church for our spiritual benefit. Often these are seen as an outward sign of reverence or symbolic action which might move us to understand a deeper or more hidden theological truth that anyone might intuit without the use of reason or intellect. The rites themselves were developed and refined by theological thought and not only serve to worship God but to instruct us, theologically as well. If a rite is done well both God and man are edified by the reality and the experience and when it is not, neither is God nor man. If we only participate externally without being fully involved spiritually then something is not right.
The rites are God centered, spiritually based expressions which should be understood as such. If they are turned into an expression of human dimension such as social justice or equality then we might be better off going to a secular humanist march for such things in our own public squares. There are times for social justice teachings but if this is what you are getting from Liturgy or religious rites meant to praise and worship God then we are being misdirected from our end.
It is the job of everyone who has come to understand their purpose and aim in this life (to be forever happy with God in the next life) and the fundamental principles that Mother Church teaches to get us there, to keep a constant vigil on laxity of expression, word or deed. Just as broken families followed divorce or abortion followed contraception, large consequences usually follow from small beginnings. No one is exempt from scrutiny. Everyone is charged to live our faith and teach the faith by our acts. If your priest does not genuflect when consecrating the host or chalice then you need to ask him why he isn’t. If people are chatting and laughing during the Mass then you need to ask them to stop. Liturgy is not entertainment anymore than it is a platform for social commentary. It is the Sacrifice of Christ to be applied to our souls. If you come away with some other message then the Rite of Mass failed you and the Church has failed to provide you with what She is bound to do.
Thereby, we are all called to defend the teachings of the Church to the best of our ability. We are to condemn practices that weaken or confuse our understanding of theology and rob us of our God-given right to both a theological and spiritual expression of worship that edifies both God and our spirit. Orthodoxy (or right thinking) is to always be aimed at as you cannot pray or worship as you ought without it. In a seamless garment you cannot pull on one thread or clip it from the garment as you will likely end up with nothing but a pile of thread which is good for nothing. Should I feel shame that I deprive others of bread and circuses in the Church? Let them get such from Caesar but not from the hands of our priests at Mass. Can we not watch with Him for even 1 hour? Have we fallen asleep again?
Dave, this is fantastic, in the way that you’re speaking from within your soul as it pours forth outward.
You chose the faith, God placed me in his Church by his Grace, I presume is the reason I sympathize so much with the Flytes in Brideshead. God deserves all of what you have said; however, the question is not whether you and I agree and pat each other on the backs, but rather how to convince others to become fishers of men?
It’s important to understand when Christ challenges the Pharisees, he does so because he is the new Moses–the living Torah. The Church is the bride of Christ, now some may argue that the Church has changed and claimed that it hasn’t; however, I believe it merely to be the development of what man perceive to during the particular period of history, which is why doctrine develops. Of course, these are not my sentiments, but Pope Benedict XVI’s.
We Catholics must understand that there is a great depth of theology.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Philip.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave – you may be in danger of taking your eye off the ball here.
There are issues that unite Christians no matter what their denomination against false Christians who have infiltrated Christ’s church, again no matter what their denomination.
The issue that raised the whole furore was Jessica’s apparently relaxed attitude towards sin. We’d all agree that love comes first; Jesus loved me while I was still an unrepentant sinner and it was this love that brought me to repentance unto remission of my sin and faith. The discussion surrounding the woman taken in adultery and the unsatisfactory answer (or rather lack of answer) to the question, ‘OK – what would have happened if she had ignored Jesus and blatantly continued in her sin?’ that led to you and I getting somewhat alarmed.
I’ve seen this in the Lutheran church in Scandinavian countries, where they promulgate a false gospel. I remember when I went to Bergen (purely sight-seeing holiday to Norway) and in one of the main churches they had a rather sick display – a bucket containing rocks and a cross, with a note saying ‘take a rock, representing your burden and place it by the cross.’
Note the crucial piece that is absent; it did not say ‘the burden of your sin’. This defines and characterises the whole sick theology that I saw in Scandinavian Lutheran churches; the Church of Sweden line seems to be ‘oh life is so awfully hard and we are the innocent victim of rampant vicissitudes, but if we come to Jesus, we will find rest and tranquillity.’ There is nothing in all of this about the fact that we are sinners (i.e. we sin – not that we are the innocent victims of inherited guilt which is imputed to us by original sin) and that our sin (thought, word and deed) deserves the crucifixion that Jesus endured on our behalf.
Yes, yes – there are points that lead to excellent arguments which are a pleasure to participate in. You try saying that the fruit of the Tree of Life from Genesis is somehow the Eucharistic body and blood of Christ; I think that this sounds like Dago talk. We can argue about this until the cows come home and it is great fun.
But we shouldn’t take our eye off the ball, which is that we are sinners and that the gospel is a gospel of repentance to remission of sin. It is when this is either absent or down-played that we get discombobulated.
Geoffrey is showing worrying signs – we should be careful about engaging in a good argument because he has bad memories of the Ulster head bangers of the 50’s and 60’s who used religion as an excuse to blow each other to bits. If religion does this to people then it is disgusting and there is something seriously wrong; if this is used as an excuse to stifle debate between serious people, then again there is something seriously wrong.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jock – this was on point, though from a personal perspective. It is why I have the right to criticize my own leadership when or if they do things to muddy our teachings with novel practices and voice ideas at times that actually contradict Church teaching. So this is an explanation for that which I never even thought I needed to voice. It is just a side bar, Jock.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dunno why you thought I was relaxed about sin – possibly the same reason I thought I saw few signs of the love of Christ – talking past each other as so often, and reading there what we thought ought, or ought not to be – or is that just me? Could be.
I’m not a great fan of counterfactuals, so have no idea what would have happened if the woman had continued sinning. There are a host of possibilities: she would have carried on sinning, never repented and been judged and gone to hell; she would have carried on sinning, repented, and been forgiven, sinned again, repented and gone to heaven; she would have given up adultery and taken up being angry with those people who might have stoned her and gone to hell because she was judged with the same judgement she had used? Who knows? every apologist and polemicist will pick the scenario which suits them best.
I wasn’t aware I’d said or written anything which even implied we are not sinners and should not repent. I am aware of writing and saying that if we begin with the unchurched by talking about sin, they close their ears and go away. I know this from personal experience – quite a bit of it. You may have been more fortunate and at the mention of the words sin and repentance, the unchurched realised what you meant – if so, I envy you a huge amount and would love to know how you did it? I’ve simply found that starting with love we can raise the other issues later – and have always tried to make it clear I am talking about the unchurched and not those in church.
LikeLiked by 1 person