Saturday, September 18, 2010
General Synod
In case any one who can introduce any voters reads this nonsense, I am standing for election to the House of Laity of the General Synod of the Church of England in the Diocese of Southwark. My election address can be found here: http://db.tt/IKekcsi
Friday, September 17, 2010
A Response to Evangelicals Now
I haven't blogged here for a while, been busy, but a an article my dad linked me to deserves correcting. After all it just won't do for someone to be wrong on the internet, now would it?
The article in question is here: http://www.e-n.org.uk/5182-Roman-Catholicism.htm
Given it is written in a list format, I shall attempt to respond point by point! For reference, I am not a Roman Catholic, but I am a catholic (the small c is significant).
1. "It (Roman Catholicism) holds basically to a Trinitarian view of God"
What? I'm not sure I even can comprehend this statement in a way that the word "basically" is necessary. The Trinitarian understanding of all Western Christianity stems from the teachings of those hyper-evangelical protestants St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas, and before them St. Iraneaus. Oh, and who coined the magnificent Greek (homoousios) at the centre of the Christological part of this question? Oh, yes, the Orthodox Catholic Church of which the Pope was part, meeting in council in Nicea! Not only does Roman Catholicism hold to a Trinitarian view of God, it damn well defined it!!!
2. "In third world countries often their missionaries, monks and nuns do wonderful work helping the poor and needy."
Damnation by faint praise anyone?
3. "Catholicism has a different Bible"
No. Factual error. You (as in Evangelicals Now), historically, have a different Bible. Either accept this by simple statistics: the Orthodox and the RCs (without counting the many Anglicans, Old Catholics etc who also accept the Apocrypha) are more than a majority of world Christians; or accept it by historical fact: when the Canon of Scripture closed in the 4th Century, the position of the Church was that the Apocrypha was simply a part of Scripture. It was not seriously questioned until the time of the Reformation. And even then even the great reformer Luther wasn't certain he wanted to be rid of it!
NB - The definition of different I am using here is that of "not the norm". Given the statement is clearly meant prejudiciously I assume it was not this definition being used by the author.
4. "there is no record of Jesus ever quoting from or referring to the Apocrypha"
This may be true, but if that is the requirement for inclusion in the Bible, we can probably exclude (just off the top of my head) Joshua, Judges, Ruth, some of the Samuels, the Kings and the Chronicles, Esther, Job, Song of Songs, Lamentations, several minor prophets and all of the New Testament. (Brownie points for each proof text from these books made in comments, and for anything I've missed!)
5. "Catholicism gives their church tradition equal authority with the Bible"
Pot, kettle, black... Where does the Bible say within itself that it should be read literally? You mean that you do it because it is tradition... so long as its not Holy Tradition, hey? And as to equality, using your quotation from the CotCC: "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God: Each must play there part, but we only understand Holy Scripture through the lens of Holy Tradition, using reason (see, I am an Anglican!).
6. "But this is to deny 2 Timothy 3.16,17"
First up, someone is confusing a priori and a posteri statements. You cannot use St. Paul's letter to Timothy to conclude anything about the use of books that hadn't even been written never mind accepted as Scripture. Furthermore, according to the NIV, the reference reads "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Nowhere does that claim uniqueness, sufficiency or even (Warning: Heretic Alert!!!) necessity! It merely claims usefulness!
7. "Herein we see the root of Rome’s error. Because they put the church on a par with Scripture they are unable to engage in self-criticism" (And the rest of the paragraph)
Somewhere we went from "tradition" to "the Church", and I didn't notice... However, yes it can lead to a lack of self-criticism, but so can any form of certainty that you are right! And that includes those evangelicals who think that what their preacher intones based on his reading of that beautifully inaccurate translation the King James Version is the Word of God(TM)!
8. "The pope (sic) is said to be in the place of the Jesus Christ."
In place here is only accurate here if we read it as "acting as a messenger for" not as Prince Regent for a King. Whilst I disagree with the statement in the CotCC, it does not mean what EN think it means. It means power over in the way that St. Paul commands husbands to have power over their wives... to be as Christ to them... Christ who washes the feet of his disciples... Christ "who being in very nature God... made himself nothing". Some power!!! Hence the description of priests as the servants of the servant of God, and by extension, the Pope must be the servant of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of God, or thereabouts!
As a side note, infallibility is one of the reason I am not a Roman Catholic.
9. "The true ‘vicar of Christ’... is the Holy Spirit"
Not sure I understand this statement. A vicar has responsibility for God's possessions both spiritual and temporal in a parish. In the case of the Holy Father, this parish is the world, and the possessions everything in it. In the case of the Holy Spirit, that is not how I understand it to act!
10. (The Holy Spirit) who has come to earth in the place of Jesus
Would that not then be the same Spirit that called Abram from Ur, or called young Samuel in the temple, or came upon a young shepherd anointed King of Israel who went on to slay a giant? Or who spoke through Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, or the other prophets? The Holy Spirit certainly came upon the infant church at Pentecost, but I'm not sure we can deduce that it wasn't already there, especially given God is supposed to be omnipresent!
11. "titles of the pope actually border on blasphemy"
Again, huh? If you wish to argue exclusively for the the priesthood of all believers, then everything we investe in the ancient priesthood of the Church inherited from the Apostles, must be contained within it. Ergo, we claim that blasphemy for ourselves!
12. "by ordination receives special grace"
No. Recall the mantra: a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace. It is not good to argue that the bishop tapping you on the head gives you the priestly character, because without the selection by the church, then you are not a priest. Whilst it is convenient to draw nice neat lines, reality doesn't always work like that!
13. "He is able, for example, to hear confession and forgive sins"
Anyone can hear your confession, the ancient tradition (whilst it was still practical) was to confess publicly before the gathered people during the service. The priest does not forgive sins. The priest pronounces God's forgiveness of the sins. Don't confuse the message with the messenger!
14. "We need no one else to mediate with God for us."
True, but stop confusing necessity and sufficiency. Just because we don't need a priest to pray for our salvation, it doesn't mean it doesn't help!
15. "how could the bread change into his literal body?"
This paragraph indicates a complete lack of understanding of the range of possibilities (or even the existence thereof) regarding a Real Presence, so I will only engage fleetingly.
Before I can answer the quoted question, we need some reference. Firstly how can God be "contracted to a span" as Wesley puts it? If we can accept the full and complete divinity of Christ alongside the full and complete humanity of Christ, then the idea of Him also being really present in the Most Blessed Sacrament is trivial! I am also amused that we can take these words non-literally but anything else must be literal, historical truth...
16. Council of Constance
Hey, the Council realised the Most Precious Blood was indeed precious, but as people often are they were overly protective. So, they messed up. But we just agreed this was only a trivial memorial anyway, so what does it matter?
17. "the priest is supposed to offer Christ, embodied in the bread, etc., as a sacrifice to God the Father for sin."
This statement is untrue in many ways. First up, the gifts only become the MBBaMPBooLaSJC once offered as the sacrifice. So, this is a bit of a non-starter really, but... The eucharistic prayer contains a direct contradiction to this comment though: "the sacrifice made once for the sins of the whole world" Because, as the good doctor would put it, time is not simple, but full of timey-wimey stuff, it is possible for the priest to stand in personnae Christi as our Great High Priest and offer the sacrifice of himself upon the altar, without contradicting that this sacrifice is made but once.
18. "in the New Testament, the Lord’s Supper is a ‘remembrance’"
Well that is one translation of the word. The Greek is anamnesien, which (I'm not a Greek scholar, but) means much more than we today mean by remembrance. In an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Picard and crew meet an alien race who communicate by recalling legends and myths, i.e. to describe something as brave, you name a brave hero from an ancient myth. The way that these aliens remember their legends is much closer to the way St. Paul would have understood the word than the way I might remember a friend from primary school; to remember here is a living, ongoing memory not something that is over and completed.
19. Baptism
As I said before, a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace.
20. "personal faith"
It strikes me that this is the most fundamental difference between the evangelical and the catholic viewpoints. To an evangelical, Christianity is about the individual. To a catholic, Christianity is about the group. That is not to say that personal faith is unimportant from a catholic viewpoint, but that one cannot have that faith without the whole body to sustain it. I might be a little toe on St. Paul's body of Christ, but if the body doesn't supply me with blood and oxygen I will shrivel up and die, and also if I am absent the whole body loses its ability to balance and keels over. I am only a small part, but without me, we are all screwed!
21. Penance
The distinction between a mortal and venial sin is much the same as the American legal system distinguishes between a felony and a misdemeanor. Only thing is, whilst in the USA it takes a felony to disqualify you from things, when approaching an all-good God, even a misdemeanor is a problem. With regard to confession, doing it to a priest rather than a cell group is a matter of church order rather than doctrine. Penance is part of the tradition of sackcloth and ashes - it satisfies a human need to be able to show off even as we declare our weaknesses!
22. Purgatory
I know nothing about the RCC's teaching on Purgatory, so will not comment. However, IIRC, it is no longer current teaching, and certainly at a quick glance I can't find reference in my CotCC.
23. Indulgences
Definitely no longer a part of the RCC. Yeah, the Church is imperfect. No shit, Sherlock!!
24. "Mary continued as a virgin"
Matthew 1:25 merely states that Joseph didn't have sex with Our Lady before She gave birth to the Lord. No comment is made to the aftermarth.
25. "Jesus had brothers and sisters"
The evangelist uses the word "adelphos" for brother which simply means close male relation, so at worst first cousin or half-brother or adopted brother. Similar use of language is made in the two geneaolgies of Christ given by SS Matthew and Luke, which have different names in them!
26. "she prays for her church, and in some degree is worshipped"
Yes, she prays for the Church. Being sat in God's presence for eternity without any earthly distractions probably allows a bit of time for that! And as the Italians would explain, if you would the kid to do something, you ask his mother, and when she asks the good little boy goes and does it! Our Lady is however not worshipped. Veneration is shown to those who have gone before and shown the way, but worship is due to God alone!
--
Right, much of that probably makes very little sense, but that is that. If it doesn't, and you want me to expand/rewrite when more awake, I might!
The article in question is here: http://www.e-n.org.uk/5182-Roman-Catholicism.htm
Given it is written in a list format, I shall attempt to respond point by point! For reference, I am not a Roman Catholic, but I am a catholic (the small c is significant).
1. "It (Roman Catholicism) holds basically to a Trinitarian view of God"
What? I'm not sure I even can comprehend this statement in a way that the word "basically" is necessary. The Trinitarian understanding of all Western Christianity stems from the teachings of those hyper-evangelical protestants St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas, and before them St. Iraneaus. Oh, and who coined the magnificent Greek (homoousios) at the centre of the Christological part of this question? Oh, yes, the Orthodox Catholic Church of which the Pope was part, meeting in council in Nicea! Not only does Roman Catholicism hold to a Trinitarian view of God, it damn well defined it!!!
2. "In third world countries often their missionaries, monks and nuns do wonderful work helping the poor and needy."
Damnation by faint praise anyone?
3. "Catholicism has a different Bible"
No. Factual error. You (as in Evangelicals Now), historically, have a different Bible. Either accept this by simple statistics: the Orthodox and the RCs (without counting the many Anglicans, Old Catholics etc who also accept the Apocrypha) are more than a majority of world Christians; or accept it by historical fact: when the Canon of Scripture closed in the 4th Century, the position of the Church was that the Apocrypha was simply a part of Scripture. It was not seriously questioned until the time of the Reformation. And even then even the great reformer Luther wasn't certain he wanted to be rid of it!
NB - The definition of different I am using here is that of "not the norm". Given the statement is clearly meant prejudiciously I assume it was not this definition being used by the author.
4. "there is no record of Jesus ever quoting from or referring to the Apocrypha"
This may be true, but if that is the requirement for inclusion in the Bible, we can probably exclude (just off the top of my head) Joshua, Judges, Ruth, some of the Samuels, the Kings and the Chronicles, Esther, Job, Song of Songs, Lamentations, several minor prophets and all of the New Testament. (Brownie points for each proof text from these books made in comments, and for anything I've missed!)
5. "Catholicism gives their church tradition equal authority with the Bible"
Pot, kettle, black... Where does the Bible say within itself that it should be read literally? You mean that you do it because it is tradition... so long as its not Holy Tradition, hey? And as to equality, using your quotation from the CotCC: "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God: Each must play there part, but we only understand Holy Scripture through the lens of Holy Tradition, using reason (see, I am an Anglican!).
6. "But this is to deny 2 Timothy 3.16,17"
First up, someone is confusing a priori and a posteri statements. You cannot use St. Paul's letter to Timothy to conclude anything about the use of books that hadn't even been written never mind accepted as Scripture. Furthermore, according to the NIV, the reference reads "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Nowhere does that claim uniqueness, sufficiency or even (Warning: Heretic Alert!!!) necessity! It merely claims usefulness!
7. "Herein we see the root of Rome’s error. Because they put the church on a par with Scripture they are unable to engage in self-criticism" (And the rest of the paragraph)
Somewhere we went from "tradition" to "the Church", and I didn't notice... However, yes it can lead to a lack of self-criticism, but so can any form of certainty that you are right! And that includes those evangelicals who think that what their preacher intones based on his reading of that beautifully inaccurate translation the King James Version is the Word of God(TM)!
8. "The pope (sic) is said to be in the place of the Jesus Christ."
In place here is only accurate here if we read it as "acting as a messenger for" not as Prince Regent for a King. Whilst I disagree with the statement in the CotCC, it does not mean what EN think it means. It means power over in the way that St. Paul commands husbands to have power over their wives... to be as Christ to them... Christ who washes the feet of his disciples... Christ "who being in very nature God... made himself nothing". Some power!!! Hence the description of priests as the servants of the servant of God, and by extension, the Pope must be the servant of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of God, or thereabouts!
As a side note, infallibility is one of the reason I am not a Roman Catholic.
9. "The true ‘vicar of Christ’... is the Holy Spirit"
Not sure I understand this statement. A vicar has responsibility for God's possessions both spiritual and temporal in a parish. In the case of the Holy Father, this parish is the world, and the possessions everything in it. In the case of the Holy Spirit, that is not how I understand it to act!
10. (The Holy Spirit) who has come to earth in the place of Jesus
Would that not then be the same Spirit that called Abram from Ur, or called young Samuel in the temple, or came upon a young shepherd anointed King of Israel who went on to slay a giant? Or who spoke through Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, or the other prophets? The Holy Spirit certainly came upon the infant church at Pentecost, but I'm not sure we can deduce that it wasn't already there, especially given God is supposed to be omnipresent!
11. "titles of the pope actually border on blasphemy"
Again, huh? If you wish to argue exclusively for the the priesthood of all believers, then everything we investe in the ancient priesthood of the Church inherited from the Apostles, must be contained within it. Ergo, we claim that blasphemy for ourselves!
12. "by ordination receives special grace"
No. Recall the mantra: a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace. It is not good to argue that the bishop tapping you on the head gives you the priestly character, because without the selection by the church, then you are not a priest. Whilst it is convenient to draw nice neat lines, reality doesn't always work like that!
13. "He is able, for example, to hear confession and forgive sins"
Anyone can hear your confession, the ancient tradition (whilst it was still practical) was to confess publicly before the gathered people during the service. The priest does not forgive sins. The priest pronounces God's forgiveness of the sins. Don't confuse the message with the messenger!
14. "We need no one else to mediate with God for us."
True, but stop confusing necessity and sufficiency. Just because we don't need a priest to pray for our salvation, it doesn't mean it doesn't help!
15. "how could the bread change into his literal body?"
This paragraph indicates a complete lack of understanding of the range of possibilities (or even the existence thereof) regarding a Real Presence, so I will only engage fleetingly.
Before I can answer the quoted question, we need some reference. Firstly how can God be "contracted to a span" as Wesley puts it? If we can accept the full and complete divinity of Christ alongside the full and complete humanity of Christ, then the idea of Him also being really present in the Most Blessed Sacrament is trivial! I am also amused that we can take these words non-literally but anything else must be literal, historical truth...
16. Council of Constance
Hey, the Council realised the Most Precious Blood was indeed precious, but as people often are they were overly protective. So, they messed up. But we just agreed this was only a trivial memorial anyway, so what does it matter?
17. "the priest is supposed to offer Christ, embodied in the bread, etc., as a sacrifice to God the Father for sin."
This statement is untrue in many ways. First up, the gifts only become the MBBaMPBooLaSJC once offered as the sacrifice. So, this is a bit of a non-starter really, but... The eucharistic prayer contains a direct contradiction to this comment though: "the sacrifice made once for the sins of the whole world" Because, as the good doctor would put it, time is not simple, but full of timey-wimey stuff, it is possible for the priest to stand in personnae Christi as our Great High Priest and offer the sacrifice of himself upon the altar, without contradicting that this sacrifice is made but once.
18. "in the New Testament, the Lord’s Supper is a ‘remembrance’"
Well that is one translation of the word. The Greek is anamnesien, which (I'm not a Greek scholar, but) means much more than we today mean by remembrance. In an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Picard and crew meet an alien race who communicate by recalling legends and myths, i.e. to describe something as brave, you name a brave hero from an ancient myth. The way that these aliens remember their legends is much closer to the way St. Paul would have understood the word than the way I might remember a friend from primary school; to remember here is a living, ongoing memory not something that is over and completed.
19. Baptism
As I said before, a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace.
20. "personal faith"
It strikes me that this is the most fundamental difference between the evangelical and the catholic viewpoints. To an evangelical, Christianity is about the individual. To a catholic, Christianity is about the group. That is not to say that personal faith is unimportant from a catholic viewpoint, but that one cannot have that faith without the whole body to sustain it. I might be a little toe on St. Paul's body of Christ, but if the body doesn't supply me with blood and oxygen I will shrivel up and die, and also if I am absent the whole body loses its ability to balance and keels over. I am only a small part, but without me, we are all screwed!
21. Penance
The distinction between a mortal and venial sin is much the same as the American legal system distinguishes between a felony and a misdemeanor. Only thing is, whilst in the USA it takes a felony to disqualify you from things, when approaching an all-good God, even a misdemeanor is a problem. With regard to confession, doing it to a priest rather than a cell group is a matter of church order rather than doctrine. Penance is part of the tradition of sackcloth and ashes - it satisfies a human need to be able to show off even as we declare our weaknesses!
22. Purgatory
I know nothing about the RCC's teaching on Purgatory, so will not comment. However, IIRC, it is no longer current teaching, and certainly at a quick glance I can't find reference in my CotCC.
23. Indulgences
Definitely no longer a part of the RCC. Yeah, the Church is imperfect. No shit, Sherlock!!
24. "Mary continued as a virgin"
Matthew 1:25 merely states that Joseph didn't have sex with Our Lady before She gave birth to the Lord. No comment is made to the aftermarth.
25. "Jesus had brothers and sisters"
The evangelist uses the word "adelphos" for brother which simply means close male relation, so at worst first cousin or half-brother or adopted brother. Similar use of language is made in the two geneaolgies of Christ given by SS Matthew and Luke, which have different names in them!
26. "she prays for her church, and in some degree is worshipped"
Yes, she prays for the Church. Being sat in God's presence for eternity without any earthly distractions probably allows a bit of time for that! And as the Italians would explain, if you would the kid to do something, you ask his mother, and when she asks the good little boy goes and does it! Our Lady is however not worshipped. Veneration is shown to those who have gone before and shown the way, but worship is due to God alone!
--
Right, much of that probably makes very little sense, but that is that. If it doesn't, and you want me to expand/rewrite when more awake, I might!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)