Upon falling in love with the chorus’ harmonies, I’ve pretty much had this song on a continuous loop for the last few days. Since Lent is a time for renewed dedication to prayer, and this song makes me want to go do a Holy Hour, I figured that I should post it now! Well, that’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it… 😉
I was recently corresponding with someone who kept bringing up the recent scandals in the Catholic Church. Here’s how I replied:
Your constant refrain concerning scandal in the Church suggests to me that this is a significant issue for you. It’s understandable. It is for many people. In fact, during the early centuries of Christianity this was an extremely important and controversial question: should those who denied Christ under persecution, or who surrendered the Holy Scriptures to be burnt, be readmitted to the Church if they repented? Should those ordained members who renounced their faith be able to return to ministry? There was a schismatic group called the Donatists who said “Absolutely not!”
At the heart of the matter was the question: what is the Church? The Donatists viewed the Church as a Museum of Saints. The Catholic Church rejected this limited and narrow understanding. Instead, She said that the Church was a Hospital for Sinners. She would therefore readmit fallen away Christians if they repented.
As a consequence, the Church often looks (and smells!) like a hospital. The Church is full of medicine, nurses and doctors, but She is also full of damaged people and the walking wounded. There are often outbreaks of disease. It often doesn’t look pleasant, but it is the best place to be for those who need healing. For this, I’m grateful, otherwise I fear I could never be admitted.
One of the wonderful treasures of the Catholic faith in the Roman Rite is the Lectionary.
Every Sunday the congregation hears large chunks of Scripture selected from different parts of the Bible, from both the Old and New Testaments:
1. Old Testament passage 2. Psalm 3. New Testament Epistle 4. Gospel Reading
Making Connections
The Readings selected for each week are usually united by a common theme. This is especially true for the Old Testament passage and the Gospel Reading. The brilliance of this arrangement is that it shows the unity between the Old and New Testaments. As the great Early Church Father, St. Augustine, wrote:
“The New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old is revealed in the New”
– St. Augustine of Hippo, “Quaestiones in Heptateuchum” 2.73
However, as good as this arrangement is, I have found that it can lead to certain difficulties. In particular, Catholics can sometimes have difficulties understanding how the Readings they hear on Sunday relate to the respective books of Scripture from which they are drawn, and also how those books fit into the the New Testament as a whole.
What can be done to address this problem? Well, when leading small Bible study groups, I always begin by asking those present to walk me through their New Testament’s “Table of Contents” page. I do this because, as with most things, once one comprehends the overall structure of something, the contents becomes less intimidating and more memorable because one already understands the framework and context in which that content has been placed.
The creation accounts found in the first and second chapters of Genesis are portions of the Bible with which most Catholics are typically pretty familiar. We actually had a portion read at Mass a couple of weeks ago and we’ll hear a further extract at the Easter Vigil in a couple of weeks’ time.
In today’s post I’d like to draw out a few things we learn about Adam in Genesis. In particular, I’d like to look at the five roles essential to Adam’s identity…
Several times over the last few weeks I’ve had conversations where friends have have seriously cast doubt over the very existence of Jesus of Nazareth, claiming that there’s no evidence that He’s even a real, historical figure.
You tend to hear stuff like this a lot on the Internet, but such claims are noticeably absent in respected academic scholarship. When I say “academic scholarship”, I’m not just referring to conservative Christian scholars either. I’m including liberal scholars, atheists, agnostics and those of other faiths. To demonstrate this, here’s an interview with Bart Erhman, who is an agnostic, former Christian, and a well-known figure in the area of Biblical criticism:
(I’ve moved the video start time past the pejorative preamble)
Catholic Answers recently produced an article in response in response to a recent article on Salon.com also on this subject.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers three main guidelines for the interpretation of Scripture.
#112 (1) Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.
#113 (2) Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”81).
#114 (3). Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
But what do each of these mean? Here’s my paraphrase:
1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”
Does my interpretation fit within the overall context of the passage, that particular book of Scripture and all the books of the Bible? How does it fit in within God’s fatherly plan (oikonomia)
2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”
Is my interpretation in line with the consensus of the Early Church Fathers, the Saints, the councils and popes and the Liturgy of the Church throughout the centuries?
3. Be “attentive to the analogy of faith”.
The “analogy of faith” is sometimes called the “rule of faith” and refers to the standard for belief. For the Catholic this means: does my interpretation logically and coherently fit into the Catholic Faith, which is the complete revelation of Jesus Christ as revealed in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and taught by the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church? If it conflicts with other parts of the faith, the interpretation is probably wrong.
Yesterday morning I was standing outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic and, as we prayed the rosary, I was reminded of a video I saw a few weeks ago and I made a mental note to share it here today. The video was of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an American Politician, being interviewed about her children…
Here’s a transcript of the interview with my comments interspersed:
Interviewer: In your opinion, were [your children] human beings before they were born?
This is a simple question. It deserves a simple “Yes” or “No” answer. Of course, the answer is obvious: yes! Of course, they were human beings before they were born, it’s a simple matter of biology. They were living organisms with human DNA – they were therefore human.
Schultz: You know, I believe that every woman has the right to make their own reproductive choices.
Notice how a simple question was completely avoided. Instead of an answer, we were treated to a political slogan.
Interviewer: But what did you believe about your children?
The question is politely repeated…
Schultz: That I had the right to make my own reproductive choices, which I was glad to have and which I was proud to have.
Again the question is avoided. However, her response dresses in very nice language her rather distressing viewpoint, that she had the right to kill her children if she had so desired.
Interviewer: So were they human beings? Just yes or no.
Yet again, the question is politely repeated…
Schultz: They’re human beings today, and I’m glad I had the opportunity to make my own reproductive choices, as — a right that every woman has and should maintain.
So if they’re human beings today, what on earth were they before? Ants? Elephants? Dolphins? What species transitions into humanity? Aren’t we pro-lifers meant to be the ones who are unscientific? Sheesh…
I look back over this interview and marvel. I understand why this politician responds in the way she does – her philosophy demands it…even if it makes her look rather silly. Since she is in favour of “reproductive choices”, she is forced to avoid answering basic biological questions…because to do so honestly would bring her worldview into sharp conflict with reality.
I was going to post this video after my Lenten desert time was over, but instead I’ve decided to do it now…
Several times over the last few weeks I’ve had conversations where friends have have seriously cast doubt over the very existence of Jesus of Nazareth, claiming that there’s no evidence that He’s even a real, historical figure.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers three main guidelines for the interpretation of Scripture.