Tag Archives: Christianity

Apostle to the Apostles

23 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Catholic Tradition, Early Church, Easter, Faith

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

This happened to catch my eye over at Father Z’s. While in my tradition we don’t do Saints like the Catholics do, we do respect the stalwart in faith who have gone before us. Amongst them is Mary Magdalene, the first witness of the Risen Christ, and her Feast day was yesterday. That is why she is sometimes called the Apostle to the Apostles, Christ himself charged her with going and telling the apostles that He was risen.

Well, I gather some think that the Church has rather shortchanged her and that her reputation has been sullied. Maybe so, not my department, but I keep in mind what Jessica wrote long ago about her on NEO, my blog. It was this:

Under Jewish Law the testimony of a woman was no testimony at all. The first witness to the Risen Lord was a woman – Mary Magdalen. She was tearful. There she was, come to the tomb to anoint Him, and there was the stone moved. Her mind went where most of our minds would have gone – someone had taken Him away. That great stone had not moved itself, and dead bodies don’t walk out of tombs. The grave-clothes were bundled up and there was no trace of Jesus. Hard to imagine her feelings at the point. Only two days earlier her world had fallen apart. The man whose feet she had anointed and whom she had followed so loyally had been taken, tortured and then crucified. She knew that; she’d been there (which was more than could be said for most of those Apostles). It was over. All that remained was for her to do a final duty to the corpse. But even that was to be denied her. They had taken her Lord away.

She ran back to where the disciples were and told Peter the horrible news. Typically Peter, he ran to the tomb, and equally typically was outpaced by the younger John. But John stood at the entrance, and when Peter arrived he it was who, impulsive and brave as ever, went inside to see that the tomb was, indeed, as empty as Mary had said. The men went back home, no doubt to tell the others; Mary, as is the way of women, wanted to stay there a moment longer, perhaps to gather her thoughts, perhaps to mourn a moment alone.

She looked into the tomb again, only to be met by the most amazing sight – two angels asking her why she wept. The answer she gave echoes down the ages:  “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.” As she turned away she saw a stranger, whom she took to be the gardener and asked where Jesus was. Then the man spoke – just one word, one word which shattered the world as she had known it and which echoes down the ages, even to the end of all things. ‘Mary’ was that word, the first from the lips of the Resurrected Lord. However much her tears had blinded her, that voice was clearly unmistakable: “Rabboni!” She said. Teacher, teacher, that was what she called Him. She went to cling to Him and He said: ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’  He bade her to go and tell the others what she had seen.

The testimony of a woman was no testimony in Jewish Law, and yet it was to a woman that the Risen Lord first came. He had broken the bonds of death, He had conquered the power of death and of Satan, the hold of sin on mankind was broken; and these things He entrusted to the power of one who in Jewish Law could offer no testimony at all.

She was the first. Let us love and honour her for that this Easter morning: ‘He is Risen! He is Risen Indeed!’

And there, on Easter morning itself, our Lord made his statement on the equality of women. We would do well to note that he made no case for their superiority, as so many these days seem to think, he made the case that women are valuable, and trustworthy, in their own right, which role is not the same as men but is complementary and equal to men.

In the Tridentine Missal, the Epistle is this (from the Song of Songs)

I will rise, and will go about the city: in the streets and the broad ways I will seek him whom my soul loveth: I sought him, and I found him not. (quaesivi illum et non inveni.) The watchmen who keep the city, found me: Have you seen him, whom my soul loveth? When I had a little passed by them, I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him: and I will not let him go …

Would that we all (or any of us) were that faithful to the Lord.

A Saturation of Theology in The Confessions of St. Augustine

10 Wednesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Commentaries

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

image

St. Augustine’s Confessions Book 7 Chapter 14

In this particular section of the Confessions, Augustine gives several short arguments that will be later used by the Scholastics. In a short amount of space, Augustine covers a multitude of ontology and cosmology that really need to utilize within the faith communities as a means to evangelize the world consumed by scientism.

Augustine discusses how a plurality of gods would contradict the nature of God. Naturally, this idea will be further developed by Thomas Aquinas in Chapter 42 of the Summa Contra Gentiles. Aquinas explains in relation to the divine:

“[2] For it is not possible that there be two highest goods, since that which is said by superabundance is found in only one being. But God, as we have shown, is the highest good. God is, therefore, one.

  [3] Again, it has been shown that God is absolutely perfect, lacking no perfection. If, then, there are many gods, there must be many perfect beings. But this is impossible. For, if none of these perfect beings lacks some perfection, and does not have any admixture of imperfection, which is demanded for an absolutely perfect being, nothing will be given in which to distinguish the perfect beings from one another. It is impossible, therefore, that there be many gods.

 It appears that Aquinas isn’t the only scholastic to borrow and develop of Augustine. Augustine gives a sort of proto-ontological argument to illustrate his understanding of unity of God. He writes, “For no soul ever has been able to conceive or ever will conceive anything better than You, the supreme and perfect Good.” Of course, if anyone’s taken a theology or philosophy course this statement may sound familiar, as the idea is usually attributed to St. Anselm of Canterbury who put forth what is known as the Ontological Proof for God’s existence.

In Chapter 3-7 of the Proslogion, one discovers St. Anselm’s argument for the existence of God. The basic argument comes from this statement from St. Anselm is that “O Lord my God, You exist so truly that You cannot even be thought not to exist…For if any mind could think of something better than You, the creature would rise above the Creator and would sit in judgment over the Creator—something which is utterly absurd.”[1]

I find it interesting that St. Anselm proposes that God cannot even be thought not to exist. Recently, I’ve been in conversation with a few Atheists who claim not to believe in God, and yet God ever preoccupies their mind to search out theist to discuss him. Again, it goes back to St. Augustine, our heart is restless until it rests in God.

Augustine also addresses challenges to the omnipotence of God. It’s fairly common for skeptics to challenge Christians by asking, “Can God create a rock so heavy that he could move it?” The question appears at face value to be a formidable objection to the concept of the nature of God. Naturally, when one understands what is God’s nature, he will see the question be absurd. So, if we start with the premise that God is all-powerful because of his omnipotence God could not do anything that would contradict his very nature of being all-powerful. Another example would be could God make a square a triangle? Well, no, they couldn’t be the same thing because for a square to be a square it has to have four sides; therefore, by having three sides it would no longer possess the nature of a square.

[1]Anslem of Canterbury, 94.

Post-Vatican II Christ Centered Ethics

09 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 64 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

not-sure-clipart-1

Recently, I have decided to peruse papers submitted on academia.edu on different Christian topics and post brief commentaries on our blog for discussion purposes. After taking a brief look at different papers, the title “Post Vatican II Christ-Centered Ethical Theology” really lept out at me. And perhaps, a bit of the reason is that I thought it would stir the pot a bit with Scoop—So, I couldn’t help myself.

The author of the paper is a Jesuit by the name Dr. Jean-Marie Hyacinthe Quenum. He begins his introduction quite interesting by claiming:

Christian moral theology as an academic discipline presupposes the self-actualization of Christian mystery in the community of faith called the Church. Christian moral theology draws its methodology and principles from the followers of Jesus Christ worshiping the Holy Trinity and making the fundamental option to live as recreated children of God under the process of God’s justification and sanctification in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Honestly,  I don’t really understand what idea Quenum is trying to convey in the first sentence. I would have to ask what specifically he means by Christian mystery in this statement, i.e. The Trinity, Body of Christ, Passion, sanctifying grace? It’s true that while we understand good action through the revelation of Christ’s actions and teachings in the Gospels; it doesn’t appear to follow Catholic theology of Grace, Justification, and predestination. However, when Quenum writes, “making the fundamental option to live as recreated children of God under the process of God’s justification and sanctification in Christ through the Holy Spirit.” Perhaps, it’s clarity that is missing in his state where he is speaking of our cooperation with the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit through the practice of virtues that allows one to sustain and preserve in grace. Of course, it is through prayer, practicing the sacraments, and works of mercy where God continues to infuse within our souls His graces to live a life of holiness; to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.

The understanding of grace and its role it plays in our actions, being the goodness of God, is formed from an understanding of classical orthodox understanding founded in the Augustinian and Thomistic traditions. As I would not be surprised if Quenum, being a Jesuit, being formed in the Molinist school of radical free will with God’s middle knowledge merely knowing our receptiveness to His grace, this may have led to these developments in Post-Vatican II thinking.

Quenum writes, “In Post-Vatican II Church Christian moral theology has become in university context a field of Christian ethics dealing with Christian living with real people in a real world of secularized societies. Appropriately called theological ethics, Christian moral theology has become an inspiring discipline, based on Scripture, reason, character formation, commitment to the reign of God, common good, virtues, social responsibility and the goal to become better people of God after the last Adam, Jesus Christ. “

 Again, this begs the question, how is this idea to be played out with the traditional understanding of Catholic theology with grace and predestination? Quenum goes on, “how Christians in their intentions to become Christ-like manifest their fundamental relation to the Trinitarian God creator, savior and transformer of the world by leading a virtuous life of moral responsibility and goodness.

 I am concerned with what he means by ‘intention’ our intention is to accept the grace of God by our free will; however, as God is creator, his grace actualizes our souls so the good that we do in the world comes from God. Our good actions are not our own, but rather our action within the Thomistic and Augustinian understanding of grace is to consent to the grace of God, a acquire an interior freedom that allows our heart to rest.

Quenum does speak later on in the paper about the role of prayer and the Holy Spirit. He says, “It allows the disciple of Jesus Christ to make daily decisions by seeking God’s heart. Prayer consists in listening God’s Word in faith (Hebrew 4: 2).  By building human life on the rock of God’s Word, the disciple of Jesus Christ is open to the agenda of God. The human heart is the deepest part of the human person experiencing the creative presence of the Trinitarian God. From the human heart purified by the presence of the Trinitarian God flows the moral transformation of the person called to discipleship by Christ and anointed by his Spirit.”

The statement on prayer could be okay or worrisome depending on where one places the stresses on the action of the person. Prayer is in many ways initiated by God through grace. We feel a call to it, in effect, we could make decisions to cooperate with God’s call to prayer, part of this is building the habit of prayer in our lives. However, if by the last statement he makes in this paragraph that God transforms us by his grace then the statement becomes more on par. So, again, it may be a clarity issue.

Finally, Quenum’s statement on the Holy Spirit appears to clarify my concerns early on in his paper. He writes:

The Holy Spirit who prays in the human person makes the voice of Christ heard and obeyed. The Holy Spirit guides the believer in the quest of moral transformation. Christian moral transformation requires friendship with Jesus Christ who helps the disciple to appropriate and to assimilate his life, passion, death and resurrection through the work of regeneration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit as comforter empowers the believer for a deeper relationship with the Trinitarian God that brings the fruits of a blessed life.

 Naturally, I find little issues with this paragraph with my stress on grace. The Holy Spirit is what drives our desire to have a relationship with Jesus Christ and to live a life more like his that we read in the Gospels.

Quenum does have some good points about the challenges of Christian ethics in our modern world. He does articulate well that our modern societies have regressed psychological toward pagan hedonism. He writes, “The logic of desire explored by depth psychology has placed pleasure and comfort at the pinnacle of human fulfilment. To say “no” to a desire is to repress it for a law that brings frustration, dissatisfaction and depression. A person led by the logic of desire rejects rules, regulations and laws.”

I do listen to Bishop Robert Barron’s podcast from time to time. Barron does often use an interesting analogy when it comes to sports with our modern ethics. He explains that if you want to hit a baseball or a golf ball well, you have to use certain techniques that have been tried over a period of time and perfected to do those skills well. Naturally, no one objects usually and says I prefer to hit the golf ball my own way, of course, this is because they wish to hit the ball. What we’ve failed to communicate in our modern societies is that to live life well then we do have to live by some rules. These rules are not to repress you, but rather, like cleanly hitting a golf ball, to give you interior freedom to live your life well.

Quenum explains the development of  Post-Vatican II ethics writing:

 “Post-Vatican II theological ethics has the originality of being non- judgmental. It aims at showing God’s mercy and acceptance toward those who have not yet understood the path of salvation brought by Jesus Christ. It provides supportive and brotherly community for those who are sincerely wrong. These people are no longer blamed but accompanied by wise disciples of Jesus Christ in pastoral ministry.  

 In a pluralistic world post-Vatican II theological ethics is open to dialogue which is today the fruitful method of being with others in respectful way. Dialogue in a world of competing and conflicting values makes Christian vulnerable, modest and ready to learn from others.

 I think it’s fair toask,, Do these ‘ethics’ actually work?  On the one hand, the idea of mercy is an idea that conveys the need for it. The need for mercy is the result of sin. In the post-Vatican II theology, this idea hasn’t been conveyed with much success. If we’re sticking to the golfing analogy, it would similar to telling someone who is swinging the club poorly, “it’s okay, I know you didn’t hit the ball, but go ahead swing the club again and see if you can hit it.” If we do not spend the time to explain what needs to be corrected, how can it be expected that a correction will be made?

I will attempt to answer these question with parts of Quenum conclusion:

Fifty years after Vatican II the pilgrim people of God is thinking differently moral life. The splendor of the truth is in the person of Jesus Christ inviting human beings to share the perfect goodness of the Trinitarian God through a virtuous life of love.

 Moral life is no longer about forbidden behaviors and acts which are intrinsically evil. Moral life flows from the human person whose heart is purified by the Gospel message of Jesus Christ and who makes the fundamental option to share the Trinitarian God’s values in the body of Christ led by the Holy Spirit in the renewed family of the Father.

…

Doing Trinitarian theological ethics implies the rejection of moralism, legalism and authoritarianism for a better approach of the human person as a discerning agent inspired by the Gospel that does Justice, Peace and fellowship in the redeemed world.

 Again, I’m not entirely clear about his concluding remarks. At times in the paper, I think he admits that post-Vatican II doesn’t seem to be working, as Christian morality seems to be evaporating. However, it does somewhat appear that his focus on Trinitarian theological ethics because it relies on being led by the grace through the Holy Spirit rejects legalism, but does this imply that any form of correction is legalism? Perhaps, we merely need faith in the grace of the Holy Spirit to transform the lives. It appears this type of theological ethics is similar to a lot of the ‘accompaniment’ ‘pastoral care’ type theology that comes from clerical media personalities.

Overall the text seems vague to me. It has some theology that does make sense in it, but at times the clarity is lacking,

The Historicity of Acts of the Apostles

07 Sunday Jul 2019

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 40 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

st-paul-1

One of the new commenters to All Along the Watchtower claimed that the Historicity of the Acts of the Apostle’s to him was a boring endeavor. Nonetheless, the same person, replied to some of my comments on the topic two separate times. Of course, the person attempted to claim that the book is not to be considered historically accurate. The first time, I was simply going to let him have the last word because I thought it fruitless to add anything more to the conversation because the historical consensus is moving toward my position–TheActs of the Apostles can be trusted–on the subject anyway. However, it appears he needed some sort of validation from me as he commented again; unfortunately, the comment section closed before I could reply to him. So, I’ve decided to go ahead and make it a post.

The scholarship that Acts isn’t to be trusted is outdated. The commenter did offer to post the link to me if I need it; however, I don’t find the need to be deceptive with my sources

A graduate student Jonathan Blake has posted on a scholarly forum on the Historicity of Acts. The academic paper is a good source for the current scholarly understanding of this particular book found in the New Testament and its relation to historical events. It has an incredible amount of citations for anyone to view the many different takes on historicity on the Acts of the Apostles.

Blake acknowledges that “current scholarly attitudes to the historicity of the New Testament book of Acts range widely,” which shows that there is hardly a scholarly consensus on whether it should be accepted or dismissed, so whether it should be accepted as history can still be considered by serious scholars.

Blake mentions that British scholarship on Acts has tended to view the Acts of the Apostles as historical, whereas German scholarship has been more critical of the document. Blakes writes, “Ramsay to W.L. Knox and Bruce. German scholarship has, for the most part, evaluated negatively the historical worth of Acts, from Baur and his school to Dibelius, Conzelmann, and Haenchen. In North American there is no scholarly consensus on the Acts of the Apostles.

…

The entirety of scholarship agrees that the book is reliable in its depiction of the first-century period. “Professor of Religion Charles Talbert judges Acts to be consistently accurate with regard to many details,” writes Blake.

Blake gives examples of these accurate details:

  •  Thessalonican city authorities called politarchs (Acts 17:6, 8)
  •  Grammateus is the correct title for the chief magistrate in Ephesus (Acts 19:35)
  •  Felix and Festus called procurators (Acts 23:24, 26; 24:27)
  •  Centurion Cornelius, tribune Claudius Lysias (Acts 10:1; 21:31, 23:36)
  •  The title proconsul (Greek anthypathos), used for the governors of two senatorial provinces (Acts 13:7‐8; 18:12)
  •  The prohibition against Gentiles in the Temple’s inner court (Acts 21:27‐36)
  •  The function of town assemblies (Acts 19: 29‐41)
  •  Soldiers in the tower of Antonia descended stairs into the Temple precincts (Acts 21:31‐37)

Blakes also mentions that Historian Justin Taylor likewise describes the accuracy of Acts positively,10 and lists many examples.

  •  Trial scenes throughout Acts11
  •  Reference to Phrygo‐Galatia (Acts 16:6; 18:23)12
  •  The voyage from Troas (Acts 16:11‐12)13
  •  Lydia a historical figure (Acts 16:14)14 15
  •  Magistrates named correctly (Acts 16)16
  •  Paul objects to a beating without examination (Acts 16:37)17
  •  A synagogue in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1)18
  •  Jason before the city rulers (Acts 17:5‐9)19
  •  Jews in Berea (Acts 17:10)20
  •  Athens full of idols (Acts 17:16)21
  • The Athenians’ curiosity (Acts 17:21)22
  •  Paul on the Areopagus (Acts 17:19) 23 24 25
  •  The ‘unknown god’ (Acts 17:23)26 27
  •  Paul’s visit to Athens (Acts 17:16‐33)28
  •  Jews expelled from Rome (Acts 18:1‐2)29
  •  Gallio the governor of Achaia (Acts 18:12)30
  •  The tribunal of Gallio (Acts 18:12‐16)31
  •  Events in Ephesus (Acts 19:28‐41)32
  •  Paul’s appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:11‐12)33

Blake acknowledges that Peter’s address: Acts 4:4 is a point of contention for historians. However, even if historians challenge the notions of 5,000 converts, as discussed I’ve discussed on this blog many times with other ancient histories such as Alexander the Great, the use of numbers in ancient historical documents are consistently used for grandeur and symbolism, not for accurate numbers. 

 Acts 10:1

There is some objection to this particular passage but Blake notes that Historians such as Bond, Speidel, Hilhorst, and Saddington see no difficulty,

The Jerusalem Council: Acts 15

Blake writes, “The description of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, generally considered the same event described in Galatians 2 is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account.”

The Jerusalem Council is probably the most contested historical part of the narrative of Acts of the Apostles because of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. What is important though is that in the past, what appears to be a contradiction “Recent scholarship is inclined to treat the Council and its rulings as a historical, though this is sometimes expressed with caution,” as Blake explains. He further explains that “There is an increasing trend among scholars toward considering the Jerusalem Council as historical event. An overwhelming majority identifies the reference to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 with Paul’s account in Gal. 2.1‐10, and this accord is not just limited to the historicity of the gathering alone but extends also to the authenticity of the arguments deriving from the Jerusalem church itself.’”

The “we” passages

There currently is no scholarly consensus on the “we” passages.

The three most common theories on the “we” passages as examined by Blake:

  •  the writer was redacting existing written material or oral sources, whether by genuine eyewitnesses or not.
  • use of the second person plural is a deliberate stylistic device which was common to the genre of the work, but which was not intended to indicate a historical eyewitness,
  • the writer was a genuine historical eyewitness.

Blake does acknowledge the critical commentary citing that “Critical scholars Gerd Lüdemann, Alexander Wedderburn, Hans Conzelmann, and Martin Hengel have treated Acts with scepticism, tempered with occasional acknowledgments of historical validity.” However, as Blake does preface, “Recent modern studies are far more positive in their assessment of the historicity of Acts than many previous critical commentaries.”

I will quote the entirety of Blake’s conclusion

“Current scholarly attitudes towards the historicity of Acts remain mixed, with extremist views expressed at both ends of the spectrum. However attitudes have generally become more positive since the publication of influential works by writers such as Hemer and Hengel, and historians of Rome have renewed their interest in the use of Acts as a valid source of information on the social, legal and political milieu of the empire in the first century. A number of objections to the historicity of specific events in Acts have now been dismissed conclusively, and a new consensus has emerged concerning therelationship of the ‘we’ passages to the question of authorship.”

7 Years.

15 Wednesday May 2019

Posted by in Faith, Julian of Norwich

≈ 21 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Seven years ago today, a humble little Christian blog raised its head up to look over the parapet at an increasingly hostile world. It has grown much and occasionally waned since that day, but has never lowered its head, nor has it changed its mission from that first day, as expressed in our tagline:

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you … John 13:34.

None of us who actively contribute here, were here that day. Scoop and I are probably the oldest contributors left, and I’m not very active at present, but my heart remains here.

If you are newer than we are, I’d recommend that you poke around in the archives, there is much to enjoy and much to learn, from many viewpoints.

All of those who are listed in our sidebar as contributors gave us much wisdom and remain in my thoughts and my prayers. Those no longer active are missed and I give thanks daily for those who have carried the load, before and now as well.

Mother Julian of Norwich, a great favorite of us here leaves us a couple of thought on this day.

  • “He said not ‘Thou shalt not be tempested, thou shalt not be travailed, thou shalt not be dis-eased’; but he said, ‘Thou shalt not be overcome.”

But also:

“All shall be well, and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well.” ..

Both are important to keep in mind.

So raise a glass and thank God, that there are those who keep their head up and their eyes on the prize of Heaven, and then drink to the next seven years, that they may see us continue the Lord’s work.

Good Friday meditation

19 Friday Apr 2019

Posted by in Easter, Lent

≈ Comments Off on Good Friday meditation

Tags

, , , ,

As I said on my blog earlier this week, Eastertide is one of those times when I think of absent friends and family, whyever they are absent. One of the people I miss, of course, is Jessica, the founder of this blog. Some things are not in our hands, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t remember what we have learned from them. Back in 2013, Jessica wrote a meditation on Good Friday for NEO that I found very moving. Some of you may not have seen it, and reading it again will hurt none of us, so here it is. [Neo]

We call it ‘Good Friday’. The altar in my church is stripped bare, and the crucifix is covered, and we leave with the smoke from the extinguished candles filling the gloom of an English spring afternoon; with temperatures stuck next to freezing, the shivers could have a number of causes; but meditating on the Passion of Our Lord is enough.  The sense of sorrow is an echo of that first Friday at Calvary, and it is hard to know, at that moment what is ‘good’ about it.

But when we stop in prayer and think, we can see precisely what is good.  It is the day on which all our sins are loaded on the Lamb of God, when He takes upon His shoulders your sins and mine. What wonder is this? What have we done to be so rewarded? How can this be? What wondrous love is this? Good? Yes, the best news mankind ever had or ever will have. Whatever confessional allegiances divide us, I like to feel on this day of all days, the Cross of Christ unites us.

I leave it to all the clever men to explain what in my heart I know is simple. Christ loves me. He loves us all. He did what He did, He suffered what He suffered willingly. He knew if would be terrible, and He would have preferred it if it had been otherwise; but that makes it all the more precious.

The American expression ‘when the rubber hits the road’ comes to mind. This is where our salvation was earned, and not by us. With every nail that was hammered in, as with every stripe He bore for us, we are being saved. If we find those sufferings horrible, we should know that is how God finds our sins; God did something about it – what are we doing?

It was through the breaking of that body on the Cross, and the spilling of that blood that we see what He meant on the evening of the Last Supper. His Body was broken for us; His blood spilled for us. Some of us believe that at the Eucharist we receive His Body and Blood as He said; others that it is in memory of Him. Well, Good Friday is no time to rehearse what divides us – yet more stripes we apply to His back. It is a time for prayer and contemplation.

Mine is that for all of us, the Spirit of Christ may be with us this Easter, and that we may know Him as Lord, and worship Him and be thankful for what He has done for us. What did we do to earn it? Nothing. What can we do to be worthy of it? Just heed His call to repent and follow Him in belief that He is the Christ.

In the shadow of the Cross we kneel and pray and give thanks – we are redeemed through His suffering. As the ancient hymn has it, let all mortal flesh keep silent. He has saved us. It is Good Friday – be sad and yet rejoice.

Religious Blogging, Brexit, Trump, and Two Kingdoms

22 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Anti Catholic, Blogging, Church/State, Lutheranism, Politics

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

My dear friend Kathleen and I had a short discussion the other night on her blog, Catholicism Pure & Simple. It was as such things are both productive and friendly. One of the things we touched on was whether it is appropriate for a specifically Catholic or even a Christian blog to touch on things like Brexit and President Trump.

It becomes almost impossible to shirk the debate when our governments intrude on religious beliefs and practices, such as marriage, abortion, freedom of worship and practice.

And so while CP&S has touched on these matters, I seem lately to write of little else, my self imposed remit is political with an American, and Lutheran foundation. That is part of why I’m rarely writing here lately, while congruent if feels just a bit unseemly, and a fair number of you read my blog as well. And there is no point in dragging my friends into the line of fire to no purpose, and that is pretty easy, as our friend Caroline Farrow‘s current problems with the British legal system indicate.

In any case, imagine my surprise as I’m looking around this morning to seeing Dr. Gene Veith of the Cranach blog working on exactly what Kathleen and I were discussing. He excerpted an article by British author Will Jones entitled: Progressives vs conservatives: This is why we can’t just all get along. British, American, British, American, British, Catholic, Lutheran, who says our problems are different. In any case here’s Gene, with Dr. Veith in bold:

. . .The divide [is] between those who believe the world has a given order that ought to be respected because it makes things go best in the long run, and those who do not believe this and think invoking such order is little more than a tool of oppression wielded by the powerful against those they exploit.

The social order, says Jones, expresses itself in institutions such as the family and the nation-state, along with the ideas and practices that support them, such as sexual morality and the rule of law.  Conservatives support them–with religious conservatives seeing them as facets of God’s creation–while progressives find them oppressive.

This conservative respect for natural and social order contrasts sharply with the progressive outlook which is typically hostile to claims of inherent order in nature and society. Progressives tend to follow Marx in regarding such ideas as devices created by the powerful (in Marx’s case, the owners of capital, these days, more likely straight white men) to perpetuate inequalities and restrict people’s freedom of action.

Progressives and conservatives both say they want people to be happy, but they understand very differently what this involves. Whereas conservatives see happiness as emerging from respect for the natural and social order, for progressives almost the opposite is the case: the individual’s pursuit of happiness must as far as possible be achieved by not conforming to the social order. This is because to do so is to become complicit in oppression and to succumb to the ‘false consciousness’ of being happy when enslaved. . . .

Conservatives and progressives differ also in their visions of freedom. Conservatives seek the freedom that comes from respecting the boundaries inherent in the created order. Progressives, on the other hand, aim for freedom from the created order – from biology, from the family, from the nation, from God. As a consequence, progressive freedom has a strong authoritarian bent. This might seem paradoxical, but in fact it follows directly from the progressives’ need to oppose by force the outworking of the order of nature, and to silence those who attempt to point out the problems with this.

So how does Christianity fit with this?

Yes, Christians do believe that God has ordained the family.  The “nation-state” is a relatively modern invention, unknown in the Middle Ages, classical antiquity, and tribal societies, but the “state” as some sort of social organization with earthly authorities that restrain evil and protect the good is indeed one of the God-given “estates” for human flourishing (Romans 13; 1 Peter 2:13-14).  Also, Christians believe that moral truths are part of a reality built into creation and human nature (Romans 1-2).  So by these definitions, Christians will tend to be conservative.

No one will be surprised that I heartily concur with them both, and with Kathleen as well. Here is part of one of my comments to her, which sums up my view pretty well.

As a Lutheran, I would point out that the Kingdom of the Left Hand (secular government) is also of God, although not as directly as the Kingdom of the Right hand. And so our governments on earth are also of concern to us. But while I straddle that fence, you, here, are more focussed. And, in truth, I don’t write much on the other blog for that reason as well, since I find my well pretty dry lately on church topics.

And Dr. Veith ends with this, which is certainly appropriate for us to discuss as well.

[…] The Christian’s hope is fixed not so much on this world, which will soon pass away, but on the world to come–on Christ who has atoned for the sins of the world and who will reign as King over the New Heaven and the New Earth.

Is this right?  Am I missing something?  How does this accord with Two Kingdoms theology?

I do think Jones’s analysis explains a lot, from our current political polarization to the behavior of people that we know.  But does it follow that such extreme polarization is inevitable, that there can be no common basis for consensus and social unity?  Is it impossible, in these terms, to have a “center”?  How did we as a nation function in years past?  Were there different ideologies at work?  If so, might we bring some of those back?

 

Catholicism in the public square

06 Wednesday Feb 2019

Posted by in Anti Catholic, Catholic Tradition, Church/State, Faith

≈ 34 Comments

Tags

, ,

newman_john_everett_millais

In England, and thus by extension the English-speaking world, we inherit a tradition which has been called the “Black Legend,” through which English Catholicism has also been viewed. It makes the Catholic Church the centre of anti-English activities, a cruel, intolerant organisation characterised by the Inquisition. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs  provided a foundational text here, portraying Queen Mary I as “Bloody Mary,” a theme now so ingrained as to be to some extent immoveable.

In his influential “A History of the English-Speaking Peoples,” Churchill captures this legend in his treatment of England’s history as one of struggle against the Catholic Powers of Spain and France. The implication of a special English “destiny” was one passed into the American DNA via the idea of “manifest destiny.” All good stories have a villain, and the Catholic Church makes an excellent one in this narrative.

On top of these older narratives, we have a newer one, propagated via aggressive modern secularism, which is hostile to Christianity, but particularly so to the Catholic Church. This new narrative has widened its scope beyond the old victims, who were mainly white male; women and children have been included in the charge sheet. The Church is portrayed as anti-women because of its stances on abortion and contraception; indeed there are some areas where even praising this is seen as “offensive.” It is also hostile to “LGBTI” rights. And then there is child abuse and its cover up. As ever, there would be no smoke without fire, and on the last of these issues, the Church still seems a little tone deaf in some places, and, of course, the large areas where it is not get no attention from its critics.

All of this amounts to a sustained narrative which creates difficulties being a Catholic in the public square. So how do we tell a different story without simply being accused of a biased “revisionism” for its own sake?

In the first place we need to get our history right.

If there was a time when Christianity was alien to England, it was before the invasion of the Emperor Claudius in A.D. 43. By the time of the great rupture we call the Reformation, Christianity had been in these Islands for nearly 1500 years. It did not arrive in the seventh century with St Augustine. Bede is clear that it was already here, and what is sometimes called the “Celtic” Church seems simply to have been the Christianity that was already rooted here before the early fifth century when the Romans withdrew.

England, then Wales and Scotland have a longer history of being “Catholic” than they have of being anything else. Indeed, as Cranmer, Laud and the whole Anglo-Catholic tradition exemplify, a very large section of English Christianity saw itself a a reformed Catholic Church. Beowulf, Chaucer and Shakespeare are all products of Catholic culture, as is our education system, as is our law and morality. Reasons of State made it necessary for the English and then the British State to play up the separation from Rome; but that was not the same as separating from what Christianity had given to England, and indeed, Britain.

If we could examine our history afresh and tell this story, rather than the grand narrative of Churchill, then we should make steps in a positive direction. This is not about “revisionism” for its own sake, but it is, as with “Black” and “Women’s history,” a recognition that unless the story of a neglected group is told, it is hard for us to ass that group in a proper historical context.

I would suggest that viewed from this angle, the narrative is one that unites us. The story it tells is of the way in which the Faith created a civilisation with values and norms which are still needed; created an art which still influences us; and created a culture which still matters.

It is not, and never should be, a matter of denigrating in turn those who have denigrated the Catholic Church, but rather one of emphasising the values of the Faith and their positive legacy and continuing influence. It is of saying that Catholics is not “Irish,” or “Spanish” or “other,” it is part of the English spirit. But who will tell that story, who will write that curriculum for out schools, and who will promote the attempt to correct the balance? And equally important, who will do it in a non-partisan manner which recognises that no story is wholly black or white?

I would suggest that if prominent Catholics are looking for good causes, they might do worse than work towards the creation of an Institute that might begin and promote this good work.

We have schools and universities which are world-class, but we have inherited a tradition of reserve and perhaps have so thoroughly taken on board the need to “keep our heads down,” that we have hesitated to take the lead where we are able. We would not want to be accused of being sectarian, not least by those who are.

But there is nothing sectarian in capturing again the ways in which Catholicism is part of our heritage. In 1852 Newman delivered a series of lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England which repay study. He outlined the problem and part of the solution. We are still looking for Catholics who will go forward with the task he outlined then. Shall we, in our time, say the way is too hard and the task too difficult? It was in Newman’s day. It is harder now. It will get no easier.

 

 

Augustine, Bonaventure, and Aquinas and Divine Illumination

31 Thursday Jan 2019

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg

I have been attempting to rehabilitate St. Anselm’s the ontological argument for God. However, no matter how hard I try my own understanding of discovering knowledge is similar to Aquinas’ that it begins with the senses and the recognition of the world. The issue that I’ve developed is that I disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas/Aristotle in regards to universals/forms like beauty and truth. Therefore, my ontological argument has more or less become an epistemological argument for God which is Augustinian in nature and tied to Augustine’s theory of knowledge of Divine Illumination.

I’ve been reading a bit on Divine Illumination and Aquinas’ Aristotelian Agent Intellect synthesis into his first principle of knowledge. And not surprisingly, it appears that there are those who claim that Aquinas makes a strict separation from Augustine in regards to Divine Illumination. However, it’s not a settled debate and Peter Kreeft argues in the Summa of the Summa that Aquinas is more Platonic/Augustinian in his understanding than Aristotelian, albeit many Thomist would disagree with his sentiment–I’ve personally asked one. Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that what Thomas does is merely move the understanding of Divine Illumination to the material sensory of understanding. For instance, two different husbands may look at their respective spouses and believe their own is more beautiful than the other. Some would argue this indicates that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, what appears to be innate from the two husbands is beauty itself. Sure, it’s their senses that tell them what is beautiful, nonetheless, it is not their senses that is the source for understanding the concept of beauty itself. If this is true, then, it would render that not all knowledge is gained through the senses.

The more I think about this interpretation of knowledge with Aquinas’ synthesis on the sense revealing knowledge, the more I agree with it in accord to Augustine’s philosophy of Divine Illumination in regards to Romans chapter 1 and 2 which speak about knowing God “is manifest in them” and the “law written in our hearts,” I firmly agree with Augustine that we’re in possession of certain knowledge by God; however, we’re only moved to discovering by interactions with creation as attributed by Aquinas emphasis on Participation. So, when we judge beauty, for instance, the concept of the beautiful is divinely instilled by God; however, it is through our experience with a sunrise, a mountain, the ocean, or our loved ones that stir the understanding of the beautiful.

Upon doing more reading on the topic, I find this to be very similar to Bonaventure’s assessment. Perhaps, I need to read more Bonaventure. Naturally, the above is just a short examination of my current work. I am at the moment writing a more detailed treatise on the subject of illumination.