Back to Catholicism

I'm about ready to get back to those Catholic blogs-slash-discussions-slash-questions-slash-readings.

Ya know, the Pope being in town and all.

I thought his visit was extremely positive. I sure like that guy. I admit, I was sad to see him board his plane and leave the United States of America. I even got a little teary eyed. Which I thought strange, but nevertheless, true. I don't know why I got teary eyed. Maybe hormones? Or maybe it was the look on his face and the way he smiled at people. He seems so stone cold until he smiles and then there's such a light and joy and gentleness and humility.

Pope Benedict had a little something to say about illusion. I thought it relevant to our recent discussion and my recent thoughts. Here it is in his address to the U.S. Bishops:

"For an affluent society, a further obstacle to an encounter with the living God lies in the subtle influence of materialism, which can all too easily focus the attention on the hundredfold, which God promises now in this time, at the expense of the eternal life which he promises in the age to come (cf. Mk 10:30). People today need to be reminded of the ultimate purpose of their lives. They need to recognize that implanted within them is a deep thirst for God. They need to be given opportunities to drink from the wells of his infinite love. It is easy to be entranced by the almost unlimited possibilities that science and technology place before us; it is easy to make the mistake of thinking we can obtain by our own efforts the fulfillment of our deepest needs. This is an illusion. Without God, who alone bestows upon us what we by ourselves cannot attain (cf. Spe Salvi, 31), our lives are ultimately empty. People need to be constantly reminded to cultivate a relationship with him who came that we might have life in abundance (cf. Jn 10:10). The goal of all our pastoral and catechetical work, the object of our preaching, and the focus of our sacramental ministry should be to help people establish and nurture that living relationship with “Christ Jesus, our hope” (1 Tim 1:1)."

Read the entire speech here.

Read about his 6 day visit here.

If you're interested in past Catholic discussions on this blog, go here first.  Then here.  Then here.  Then here.  And lastly, here, which is ironic because the title of that one is "Beginnings."  Ahhhh well.  All in good time.

Oprah: For the last time!

I don't really know how to effectively blog on this subject because to give it the fairest listen possible, we'd be listening for HOURS. And I'm personally getting tired of talking about Oprah on this blog. For some reason it keeps happening. Maybe it's because I have more time on my hands these days, and to be honest, I enjoy her show.

Oprah is leading an online class on Eckhart Tolle's novel, A New Earth. I haven't read the book. I've watched about 45 minutes of the first class online at Oprah.com, to see what all the rigmarole is all about. For me it is a tiresome hour and a half, a little man saying what we already know in obscure but lofty language, giving his keys to spiritual awareness and growth, quoting Jesus as an inspired teacher but not much more than that.

Some of it seems like it could be helpful. Some of it seems very dangerous. I wanted to highlight one part, because I think Christian women (and men, but I know most of you men out there could give a rat's buttooee about Oprah) should be informed, and I also have a question. For women and men.

I'll give a summary of this question posed by a Catholic reader/viewer to Oprah, and then Oprah's answer. But you can listen to it here. Just click on Chapter One and then go to about 21 minutes into the video: (Please do go listen if you have the time.)

Kelly: I'm a Catholic. My husband is Catholic and we've decided to raise our children Catholic. Tolle's book, A New Earth, is opening my eyes to a new way of thinking and form of spirituality that doesn't align with the teaching of Christianity. How do you, Oprah, reconcile this spiritual teaching with your Christian beliefs?

Oprah: Because of my experiences at a Baptist Church in my twenties, I have since opened my mind about the absolute indescribable hugeness of that which we call God. In my journey I began to search for something other than doctrine. I believe Jesus came to show us a Christ consciousness...to show us the way it's done...to show us principals and laws to know that way...in my belief, even as a Christian, I don't believe Jesus came to start Christianity. I am a free thinking Christian and believe other paths lead to God than just Christianity.

Again, please listen to her actual response if you can.

First of all, what does that mean..."I don't believe Jesus came to start Christianity"....huh? I'm seriously asking what she might mean by that. Trying to understand where exactly she's coming from here. Christ consciousness. What do you think that means?

Jesus commands us not to judge one another. When Oprah calls herself a Christian, and then describes Christianity in such an unorthodox way, should a Christian warn others that's she's not a Christian, and is in fact, a false teacher? Is that casting judgement? Is she a false teacher? Is she a Christian? Do I have a right to decide whether or not she's a Christian? What is our Christian responsibility here? Where is the line between judgement and discernment?

Tunesday and Other Things

The posts will most likely be few and far between this week. Crazy rehearsal schedule and stressful last minute details to work out for The Sound of Music.

There's a great discussion still going on here, if anyone wants to jump on board. Baptism required or not required for salvation? Church fathers. Who holds the authority to interpret Scripture? Alot in one thread, really. But if you haven't been following and would like to, go for it.

Staying true to Tunesday, I MUST post this find by my new blogging friend, Shelley. Anyone ever watch Neverending Story? You won't want to miss this. Who knew the tune was sung by this guy? Ha! And if Shelley doesn't mind, and I hope she doesn't because I didn't ask her permission, I'm using her question. What's your favorite part of this video? I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours.

Song: The Neverending Story
Artist: Limahl

Embedding is disabled. Click here. Please!!!! Just do it. Click. You won't regret it. I promise.

Catholicism: Beginnings

I wrote earlier that I believe it beneficial to look at the ways Catholics and Protestants agree. So, I quote here two statements from the Catholic Catechism, which is basically a very long and detailed statement of faith. They are both taken from the prologue to the Catechism. The very first statement of the prologue, before getting into the thick of it all, is a prayer of sorts. It reads:

"FATHER, . . . this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." (Jn 17:3) "God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim 2:3-4) "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12) - than the name of JESUS.

I find it stunning, this statement. Already, it dispells widely held misconceptions of Catholic belief. From this prayer alone, we can conclude that:

1) The Catholic Church views Scripture as vital and meaningful for the instruction and direction of their faith.

2) The Catholic Church does not view Mary as Redeemer of mankind, nor as equal to the nature of God.

3) The Catholic Church does not view the Pope or/and the priests as Redeemer of mankind, nor as equal to the nature of God.

And then, Section I:1 of the Prologue reads:

"God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life."

Again, beautiful. Already we see the appropriations of the Trinity, or the different operations given to the three persons in one nature/substance of God. We see God initiating salvation by drawing close to man. And to accomplish such a salvation, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior, that in the Holy Spirit we would be placed into an inheritance of eternal life as children of God. And that it is all done out of His goodness.

This is an important agreement. It means that Protestants cannot view Catholics in the same manner that they can view Mormons. The nature and operations of God are believed to be the same between both P's and C's. How many times have I heard, in the same breath, both Catholicism and Mormonism given as examples of cults. Catholicism and Mormonism are not the same, not even close.

Catholicism Yet Again Misunderstood

God has gifted me with a kind disposition, a smile that comes easily, and a relatively positive outlook, save for the normal depressive seasons of an artistic soul. I am thankful for these personality traits. They come with no human effort, but through God's goodness and creativity. But with certain good gifts come certain tendencies that work to my disadvantage, and at times, to my advantage.

One tendency being, when I display any irritablility, any anger, any sadness, any tiredness, with my facial expression or actions or words, the emotions come across rather...dramatic. It's beneficial whenever I teach high school choir, because it knocks students into a sort of healthy fear. I have a secret weapon. They don't see it coming. They think, oh she's gonna be a real pushover. We're gonna be able to get away with anything. But, they soon learn that I have a look from Hades that sends them into the utter recesses of despair and repentance. I love it. I would assume it will prove useful with my own children as well someday.

But the tendency can become an obstacle. Take for instance, yesterday, when I taught a piano lesson at an hour much too early for an actor who rehearsed until midnight the previous night, and suffers from a severe case of insomnia, or, as C-ham'n'eggs reminds me, a whacked out sleep schedule. The disadvantages ensue when said piano student's mother calls me as I am driving to the lesson to tell me she'll be late, and already exhausted and perhaps...grumpy?...all I can think is how I could have slept precious few more minutes. My tone in response to her must have shown my irritability, for she responded back with such curtness in her own tone, and then proceeded to tell me later, after the lesson, that I haven't been myself lately. I don't know what that means...haven't been myself....because it seems only fair to me that I would be allowed the irritability that anyone else is allowed, and it could still be considered "myself", that I was being myself, just an irritated self. But! Such cards I am dealt, and as Kddub's grandfather reminded us in a recent post, it's not what cards we have, but how we play them that counts.

I have a point to all this.

Tuesday I reacted strongly to an AP article about Pope Benedicts's document addressing Protestant "eclessial communities." I hope that you read the comments which followed, because it turns out my reaction was premature and unnecessary, and that the article was misleading and erroneous on many accounts. And I fear that my reaction came across as stronger than I intended.

Pope Benedict was present at the Second Vatican Council, though at the time known by the name Ratzinger, and since the council, he has done much work to dispel false interpretations of the Unitatis Redintegratio, a Decree of Ecumenism issued by the Council. I encourage anyone interested to read it. It is beautiful and encouraging, when seen in the correct light, that is when viewed in light of unity of all Christians. Keeping in mind that Catholics view the Reformation as sinful in regards to a separation from what they know as "the true Church," consider the following quote from the Decree,

"The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect."

When re-reading the Vatican II decree, I came across this admonition, directed to Catholics but relevant to me as well.

"We should therefore pray to the Holy Spirit for the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble. gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them. St. Paul says: "I, therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace".

My attitude and tone in my previous post did not reflect such a worthy calling. I am sorry for any confusion or misunderstanding that my dramatic ranting inspired, or for any offense taken at my anger.

Another example of how Catholicism has been wrongly conveyed, and how if we as Protestants don't take the time to dig further, we will be in danger and at fault for accepting what is untrue.

Backwards

Pope: Other Christians Not True Churches
By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer

"Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.

Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.

In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II's ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt.

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."

In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy's Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.

"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," the document said. The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles...."

Go here to read the complete article

Excuse me for being so blunt, but

What the hell?

..."Therefore did not have the 'means of salvation.' Because we don't claim apostolic succession? Last time I checked, Christ said He loved the whole world and whoever believes in Him should have eternal life. Not whoever believes the Pope succeeds directly from Peter and that Rome holds authority over all believers.

I'm mad. I'm mad because here I am reading about Catholics, finding the faith beautiful and meaningful, attempting to understand what I don't believe, and all in the name of Christ. And now...I have no means to salvation? That makes me want to stop. That makes me want to put all my books away and quit.

So is that document considered ex cathedra? I know there are liberal Catholics who believe otherwise. Are all Catholics now required to believe what that document says? I haven't read the entire document. I should read it. I don't know where to find it, but I should read it.

Vatican II was a positive step, in my opinion, and this is backwards. I don't understand this. I apologize for the ranting and raving but.... One of the things I admired about the Catholic faith was the interpretation by the Magisterium. I feel that we as Protestants think we can interpret Scripture any way we see fit, and if it's different, we just start another church, and it's all good. I appreciate the standards of authority put in place by the Catholic church. But I can't respect this. I have a really hard time respecting this. I just don't understand.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, like I've misunderstood Catholics in the past. I guess I'll try to find that document....Any clarification on this would help...

Catholicism: Where To Start?

The science of the voice has much to do with the utility of breath. When one learns to sing properly, the singer understands that breath is essential to creating beautiful sounds. However, when the singer first begins to use the fuller capacity of the lungs and executes rapid exhalation procedures for more challenging phrases, or to reach that fearful high note, the singer can often become dizzy or light-headed.

I am inhaling the Catholic Church at a rapid rate and find myself a bit disoriented.

And I haven't even skimmed the surface.

Where do I even begin? Thousands of years of doctrine and history, all of it fitting and weaving together, one doctrine depending on another, and leading to yet another. Colossal movements of history defining where Christianity is today.

A bit overwhelming, really. But! I stay the course. Well, first I should decide on one...a course that is. And I think that it would help us all to first look at areas in which we agree. It may be safe to say that we are not all assured of where those agreements lie. It's tempting to get right down to it and throw darts at the statues of St. Peter and the Blessed Mother, Queen of Heaven. But I'm not sure our aim would be skillful, or we'd find ourselves aiming at only illusions of what we suppose our intended targets to be, our darts passing right through, and the attempt, ridiculous.

If, along the way, dialogue ensues that reaches into those depths of differences, then by all means, please proceed forward. Or if questions arise or topics change, good. Most assuredly, I will post on the most desired of topics in time, those which highlight our differences, but I welcome any such discussion that occurs before, as it only helps me as I learn.

Which brings me to an important point. I believe it is necessary, while studying the Catholic church, to remain open minded when faced with theological ideas foreign to the thinker. Not to do away with judgement altogether. Of course not. But to realize that one cannot make an educated conclusion on anything without considering there be truth somewhere in that thing before excluding it.

I thought I would make a new blog for all of this, but it seems the success rate in the multi-blog area is low. What's the point really? I'll post here. If you're interested, then read it. If you're not, then don't.

So there we are. Rules stated. I'll get on with it soon. I promise.