In the Gospel According to St. John, he frequently uses a term for an
apostle who is only called by it throughout the memoir: the beloved
disciple, the disciple who Christ loved, or a similar form. Christian
Tradition has always held this disciple to be St. John himself, but a
definitive explanation for his usage of the phrase has never been given,
only many alternatives.
While attending Good Friday Mass, the
reading included the account of Christ's Passion as recorded in St.
John's Gospel. In it, Christ says to his mother Mary, while indicating
the beloved disciple, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the
disciple directly, He said, "here is your mother." (John 19:26-27) By
this pronouncement, He was not only putting Mary in St. John's care, and
vise versa. The Church has always taught that He was indicating Mary as
the mother of all by that designation, not just John. And I believe
that John's use of the simple term disciple rather than his own name is
textual proof of this.
Why did John substitute beloved disciple
for his own name? Everyone who follows Christ, through faith and deed,
is His disciple; the apostles were disciples, but Jesus had many
disciples other than the apostles, just as many in the Old Testament
were Israeli without being the head of one of the Twelve Tribes, and
just as a diocese has one bishop but many members. Furthermore, John did
not say, "the disciple who Jesus loved especially," or "more than the
others"; he simply wrote, "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Well, Christ
loves all of His disciples, so giving it that adjective definition was
not enough to distinguish the identity of the mysterious disciple - by
all appearances.
In fact, I believe that John specifically used
not only the generic term "disciple" rather than his own name
intentionally, but that he also said "loved" or "beloved", rather than a
more qualitative adjective like "most loved", on purpose as well. All
Christians are beloved disciples of Christ. God loves all, but by a
Christian's voluntary obedience to and love of Christ, sealed by
baptism, we become His disciples, and he loves us all equally and
completely.
Thus, I believe that St. John used the term "beloved
disciple" throughout his Gospel to give a character in the factual
narrative that everyone could relate to personally, and also as a model
of a good disciple - which the indicated disciple himself, John,
certainly was. Now, for all readers of John's Gospel, we have someone to
live through vicariously, to put ourselves in the place of and truly
live the Gospel.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
House of Straw
Catholicism and atheism have two different types of philosophical
foundations. While the former is based in the use of arguments which
propose "positive" views - affirmative or creative, rather than
detracting or denying - the latter utilizes a "negative" form of
proposal. Atheists are not stereotypical or generic as many Christians
vilify them to be, but as a philosophical belief system, atheism is
founded on certain ideas which all atheists share, and which lead to
their more positive beliefs.
The claims of Catholicism are affirmative: God exists; Christ lived, died, was buried and is resurrected; the Sacraments dispense grace from God; angels exist; etc. Any negative claims they make, such as moral prohibitions or the denial of heresies and fallacies, derive from and are a consequence of their fundamental positive dogmas.
Atheism, on the other hand, is based in denial: God doesn't exist; nothing immaterial exists; Christ possessed no supernatural quality; sin doesn't exist; resurrection has never and will never occur; miracles are fake; etc. All atheists share these claims, which are fundamentally negative. They deny, rather than affirm, propose or create, unlike Catholic dogma. And like Catholic beliefs, whether negative or positive, ultimately derive from these essential denials and depend upon them. As long as a positive version of their denials exist, they must continually deny it in order for their beliefs - negative and positive - to be valid. Otherwise, the existence of God is not a topic which can be believed in or denied with any real dedication, causing all their arguments to fall through.
Positive assertions, however, do not depend on negative assertions for their existence. While no negative proposal can be truly new, as it depends on the positive idea it is denying, affirmations can be wholly new and original, giving them validity even independently of any other factor. The denial of an affirmation simply illuminates it and assures its continuation, as denials must have their source positive idea to survive. While Catholicism or atheism can have constituent or subsidiary positive or negative beliefs, each has a foundation which is either positive or negative, an initial idea and position which determines the quality of all further assertions within it.
The positive beliefs which atheists create in the absence of God or theistic claims specifically rely on the denial of God. In my opinion, most of philosophy since the Renaissance has been the attempt to create a rational worldview without God and the claims of theism. Furthermore, as atheism is founded on negative claims, its affirmative beliefs can never have a true essential quality or substance. They will forever be arbitrary and dependant on the opinion of the individual atheist. While the individual may support his or her beliefs against another's, in truth, atheism itself lends no credibility to any specific positive assertion. A negative idea is solitary. Unlike affirmations, a denial has no necessary consequences, as the possibilities of a worldview without that which it denies are endless. For example, the denial of a theistic God does not guarantee that there is a spiritual force in life; it doesn't specify the nature of spirituality, or whether there is anything supernatural or not; and it gives no consequential message about the moral or theological, even the philosophical, aspects of life beyond its denial. The consequences of denials remain in the hands of the atheist to determine, an authority which many atheists seem to prefer to the magisterial authority of the Church or a similar religious institution.
Truly, I believe Catholicism is the only religion or philosophy with a purely affirmative foundation, with any denials being merely a consequence of its positive assertions. I believe this has led to the many wonderful Catholic ideas which have so fruitfully aided our society, such as humanistic principles, objectivity in science and academia, and the need for a just and impersonal standard of law. Further, the ultimate hope and certainty of all Christians is the eventual time when all the universe will be fully affirmed, all negativity removed and everything fulfilled to its truly intended state - the Kingdom of Heaven, the Redeemed Earth, and the Resurrection of Humanity. Christ is the penultimate affirmation, guaranteeing all God's promises and displaying the fullness of His love in His salvation from the negativity of sin. As Christians, we are called to live this affirmative life of love in the certain hope of resurrection, the knowledge of redemption, and the conversion unto salvation.
The claims of Catholicism are affirmative: God exists; Christ lived, died, was buried and is resurrected; the Sacraments dispense grace from God; angels exist; etc. Any negative claims they make, such as moral prohibitions or the denial of heresies and fallacies, derive from and are a consequence of their fundamental positive dogmas.
Atheism, on the other hand, is based in denial: God doesn't exist; nothing immaterial exists; Christ possessed no supernatural quality; sin doesn't exist; resurrection has never and will never occur; miracles are fake; etc. All atheists share these claims, which are fundamentally negative. They deny, rather than affirm, propose or create, unlike Catholic dogma. And like Catholic beliefs, whether negative or positive, ultimately derive from these essential denials and depend upon them. As long as a positive version of their denials exist, they must continually deny it in order for their beliefs - negative and positive - to be valid. Otherwise, the existence of God is not a topic which can be believed in or denied with any real dedication, causing all their arguments to fall through.
Positive assertions, however, do not depend on negative assertions for their existence. While no negative proposal can be truly new, as it depends on the positive idea it is denying, affirmations can be wholly new and original, giving them validity even independently of any other factor. The denial of an affirmation simply illuminates it and assures its continuation, as denials must have their source positive idea to survive. While Catholicism or atheism can have constituent or subsidiary positive or negative beliefs, each has a foundation which is either positive or negative, an initial idea and position which determines the quality of all further assertions within it.
The positive beliefs which atheists create in the absence of God or theistic claims specifically rely on the denial of God. In my opinion, most of philosophy since the Renaissance has been the attempt to create a rational worldview without God and the claims of theism. Furthermore, as atheism is founded on negative claims, its affirmative beliefs can never have a true essential quality or substance. They will forever be arbitrary and dependant on the opinion of the individual atheist. While the individual may support his or her beliefs against another's, in truth, atheism itself lends no credibility to any specific positive assertion. A negative idea is solitary. Unlike affirmations, a denial has no necessary consequences, as the possibilities of a worldview without that which it denies are endless. For example, the denial of a theistic God does not guarantee that there is a spiritual force in life; it doesn't specify the nature of spirituality, or whether there is anything supernatural or not; and it gives no consequential message about the moral or theological, even the philosophical, aspects of life beyond its denial. The consequences of denials remain in the hands of the atheist to determine, an authority which many atheists seem to prefer to the magisterial authority of the Church or a similar religious institution.
Truly, I believe Catholicism is the only religion or philosophy with a purely affirmative foundation, with any denials being merely a consequence of its positive assertions. I believe this has led to the many wonderful Catholic ideas which have so fruitfully aided our society, such as humanistic principles, objectivity in science and academia, and the need for a just and impersonal standard of law. Further, the ultimate hope and certainty of all Christians is the eventual time when all the universe will be fully affirmed, all negativity removed and everything fulfilled to its truly intended state - the Kingdom of Heaven, the Redeemed Earth, and the Resurrection of Humanity. Christ is the penultimate affirmation, guaranteeing all God's promises and displaying the fullness of His love in His salvation from the negativity of sin. As Christians, we are called to live this affirmative life of love in the certain hope of resurrection, the knowledge of redemption, and the conversion unto salvation.
Irrational Materialism
It is a commonly-held view in modern times, even by scholars, that many
positive aspects of today's society are attributable to the Protestant
Reformation. They say that Protestantism "liberated" society from the
yoke of the Catholic Church, putting religion, learning, government and
labor into the hands of the common people. Further, they attribute the
Reformation as leading to modern science, democracy, liberal philosophy
and public education. Unfortunately, this is the propaganda so many
people are victimized with in public school, only to subsequently center
their worldview on these accusations against the Catholic Church. Even
many Catholics themselves fall into this, viewing the Church and its
Sacraments as mere symbols and congregational sentiments while giving
way to permissiveness and compliance towards Goodness and Truth.
In truth, the Reformation stunted the intellectual, technological, political and economic growth of Europe for centuries, especially with the pillaging wreaked by Henry VIII in England by closing monasteries, legalizing usury and separating from the Church. By the time of the Renaissance, people in the Church - especially monks - had progressed very far, having developed the university system, the scientific method, the continuation of writing, and more, even discovering the technology of casting iron which led to the Industrial Revolution centuries later. The Reformation explicitly denied the vast range of Catholic learning, especially its emphasis on philosophy, science, classical literature, Latin and humanistic principles. More deeply, the Reformation denied reason. To quote Martin Luther, "[reason] is the Devil's greatest whore." (Martin Luther's Last Sermon in Wittenberg ... Second Sunday in Epiphany, 17 January 1546.Dr. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. (Weimar: Herman Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1914), Band 51:126, Line 7ff)
But the Reformation was not independent of its times. It was a constituent development of the Renaissance, which heralded both spectacular and horrible ideas for Western civilization. On the one hand, Catholicism developed humanism, which emphasized human dignity as being in the Image of God and applying that idea to all areas of life, which lead to modern democracy, human rights, civil rights, etc. On the other, fear of the Black Plague shifted people's focus from the heavenly topics of Catholicism to concerns of the world. Society began to focus on money, aesthetics, technology, nature and individualism. The underlying philosophy that developed in the Renaissance, opposite Catholic humanism, was materialism. This was the root of the Reformation just as much as other Renaissance developments.
Many people forget (or ignore) the fabric of materialism in Protestantism. By emphasizing the purely literal and historical meaning of Scripture to the exclusion of all else, denying fields such as philosophy and literature, and citing Catholic Sacraments as superstitious and its sacramentals as idolatrous, Protestants denied all meaning and significance beyond the obvious physical world. Ironically, many Protestants also hated the physical world, espousing a sort of Platonism where only the spiritual world means anything and is absolutely separate from the physical. In their confusion, Protestants believed Catholic attribute spiritual significance and philosophical meaning to life because we prefer the world over God. In truth, we do this because the world was made by God, and thus has meaning, especially sanctified by the Incarnation - whereas Protestant materialism simply distances God and vilifies the world.
The Protestant rejection of reason, as an expression of Renaissance materialism, has influenced the entire world since. Before the Renaissance, society - especially scholars and religious/clergy - viewed learned information as simply a tool for the clarification of reason. The purpose of education in the Middle Ages was the sharpening and honing of reason. To them, while some people are ignorant and will always be, everyone has reason and can use it, so it is truly an inherently human faculty that can uncover and interpret Truth. At the advent of the Renaissance and its materialist forsaking of reason, the focus in people's lives - especially in academic circles - became acquiring as much information as possible. Knowledge, rather than reason, became the measure of not only intelligence, but wisdom and spiritual vision. Protestant ministers were not judged apt based on their elucidative abilities, but on their memorization of Scripture. Similarly, philosophy, logic and rhetoric took a back seat to the memorization of historical, scientific, economic and mathematical information with no pressure to care about one's subject. The study and use of reason became not only marginalized but mocked and rebuked as immature, irrelevant and primitive.
I believe this is one of the most difficult fundamental obstacles Catholics often face in dialogue with atheists and Protestants. Catholicism still employs reason. Even if our people are usually rationally inhibited during materialistic public school, many Catholics still attend Catholic school, especially if they subsequently attend seminary or a Catholic college, or simply study it themselves. For example, when addressing the question of the existence of God, many Catholic apologists use the argument of First Cause - since the universe exhibits cause and effect, there must rationally be a first cause or first mover. To proceed the physical universe, this being must be divine - God. When many atheists reject this off-hand, Catholics often feel dismissed or mocked. Which they often are in this situation. But atheists' minds, being so deeply ingrained with materialistic, anti-reason thinking, automatically reject arguments that employ reason. This is why they usually reply with "the physical world does not give any conclusive evidence that there is or is not a First Mover, and because God cannot be seen, He cannot be proven and thus does not exist." Not only do they say the First Cause cannot be known, but because their materialistic focus is so narrow and limited to the visible world, they believe with certain faith that God does not exist if He is not visible.
Reason was the primary tool I used in my conversion to Catholicism. Obviously, reason is not the only thing that did this. Being Catholic is not simply an intellectual pursuit. It is a deeply spiritual life rooted in faith, love and hope, guided and focused on God and His Church. Ultimately, these were the deciding factors in my conversion. However, without reason, I would have remained an atheist. Christ Himself used reason, as did the entire Bible. The reasoning of the Church when interpreting dogma is infallible under Papal authority. While apologetics should be gentle and reverent, reason should never be forsaken, there or in the rest of one's life.
In truth, the Reformation stunted the intellectual, technological, political and economic growth of Europe for centuries, especially with the pillaging wreaked by Henry VIII in England by closing monasteries, legalizing usury and separating from the Church. By the time of the Renaissance, people in the Church - especially monks - had progressed very far, having developed the university system, the scientific method, the continuation of writing, and more, even discovering the technology of casting iron which led to the Industrial Revolution centuries later. The Reformation explicitly denied the vast range of Catholic learning, especially its emphasis on philosophy, science, classical literature, Latin and humanistic principles. More deeply, the Reformation denied reason. To quote Martin Luther, "[reason] is the Devil's greatest whore." (Martin Luther's Last Sermon in Wittenberg ... Second Sunday in Epiphany, 17 January 1546.Dr. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. (Weimar: Herman Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1914), Band 51:126, Line 7ff)
But the Reformation was not independent of its times. It was a constituent development of the Renaissance, which heralded both spectacular and horrible ideas for Western civilization. On the one hand, Catholicism developed humanism, which emphasized human dignity as being in the Image of God and applying that idea to all areas of life, which lead to modern democracy, human rights, civil rights, etc. On the other, fear of the Black Plague shifted people's focus from the heavenly topics of Catholicism to concerns of the world. Society began to focus on money, aesthetics, technology, nature and individualism. The underlying philosophy that developed in the Renaissance, opposite Catholic humanism, was materialism. This was the root of the Reformation just as much as other Renaissance developments.
Many people forget (or ignore) the fabric of materialism in Protestantism. By emphasizing the purely literal and historical meaning of Scripture to the exclusion of all else, denying fields such as philosophy and literature, and citing Catholic Sacraments as superstitious and its sacramentals as idolatrous, Protestants denied all meaning and significance beyond the obvious physical world. Ironically, many Protestants also hated the physical world, espousing a sort of Platonism where only the spiritual world means anything and is absolutely separate from the physical. In their confusion, Protestants believed Catholic attribute spiritual significance and philosophical meaning to life because we prefer the world over God. In truth, we do this because the world was made by God, and thus has meaning, especially sanctified by the Incarnation - whereas Protestant materialism simply distances God and vilifies the world.
The Protestant rejection of reason, as an expression of Renaissance materialism, has influenced the entire world since. Before the Renaissance, society - especially scholars and religious/clergy - viewed learned information as simply a tool for the clarification of reason. The purpose of education in the Middle Ages was the sharpening and honing of reason. To them, while some people are ignorant and will always be, everyone has reason and can use it, so it is truly an inherently human faculty that can uncover and interpret Truth. At the advent of the Renaissance and its materialist forsaking of reason, the focus in people's lives - especially in academic circles - became acquiring as much information as possible. Knowledge, rather than reason, became the measure of not only intelligence, but wisdom and spiritual vision. Protestant ministers were not judged apt based on their elucidative abilities, but on their memorization of Scripture. Similarly, philosophy, logic and rhetoric took a back seat to the memorization of historical, scientific, economic and mathematical information with no pressure to care about one's subject. The study and use of reason became not only marginalized but mocked and rebuked as immature, irrelevant and primitive.
I believe this is one of the most difficult fundamental obstacles Catholics often face in dialogue with atheists and Protestants. Catholicism still employs reason. Even if our people are usually rationally inhibited during materialistic public school, many Catholics still attend Catholic school, especially if they subsequently attend seminary or a Catholic college, or simply study it themselves. For example, when addressing the question of the existence of God, many Catholic apologists use the argument of First Cause - since the universe exhibits cause and effect, there must rationally be a first cause or first mover. To proceed the physical universe, this being must be divine - God. When many atheists reject this off-hand, Catholics often feel dismissed or mocked. Which they often are in this situation. But atheists' minds, being so deeply ingrained with materialistic, anti-reason thinking, automatically reject arguments that employ reason. This is why they usually reply with "the physical world does not give any conclusive evidence that there is or is not a First Mover, and because God cannot be seen, He cannot be proven and thus does not exist." Not only do they say the First Cause cannot be known, but because their materialistic focus is so narrow and limited to the visible world, they believe with certain faith that God does not exist if He is not visible.
Reason was the primary tool I used in my conversion to Catholicism. Obviously, reason is not the only thing that did this. Being Catholic is not simply an intellectual pursuit. It is a deeply spiritual life rooted in faith, love and hope, guided and focused on God and His Church. Ultimately, these were the deciding factors in my conversion. However, without reason, I would have remained an atheist. Christ Himself used reason, as did the entire Bible. The reasoning of the Church when interpreting dogma is infallible under Papal authority. While apologetics should be gentle and reverent, reason should never be forsaken, there or in the rest of one's life.
The Hope of the Old Testament
The Bible is the most printed and read book ever written. It is also the
most complex and significant book of all time. To act as a witness to
the Tradition of the Church which preceded the Bible, it required
infallible, inspired hands to write it with the depth and perfection
required for the Holy Word. The Old Testament, often called the Law or
simply the Scriptures by Jews, was once the only Bible. It is at least
three thousand years old, with the events it details stretching back to
the beginning of the universe and humanity.
There are many "senses" to Scripture - three, in fact. While it is not the intention of this article to delve into that specific topic, it should be noted that the Bible is too complex and intricate to be read only at face value, as some suggest. To do so is to overestimate oneself and underestimate the spiritual depth of the Bible and God Himself. The Bible of course is a recording of events and truth which preceded it, but in order to record and elucidate on them it must employ the widest possible range of literary senses and techniques. Furthermore, things such as historical context, religious usage and reference to other Biblical passages must be taken into account as well in the interpretation of Scripture.
Jews did not simply write the Old Testament to record history. They believed the events, and their own thoughts and experiences, to have spiritual importance and so were inspired by God to write them down. Each book of the Old Testament had a different author and/or style - genealogical, historical, prophetic, proverbial, poetic, etc. Each of these styles had a specific religious aim in mind, to describe a different aspect of Truth and God's revelation. The New Testament shows us an even greater depth to the Old Testament and an underlying thread which ties all of it together - Christ.
Christians often say this: Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. But what does this mean? To answer this, we must understand that Jews in the Old Testament were unified by a common belief: hope for the coming of the Messiah, of God's salvation of the world by replacing sin with redeemed perfection. Obviously, they did not know the specific plan God had in mind, even His prophets. But God revealed things to the Old Testament saints which prefigured Christ and the entire Gospel, as is St. Paul's use of the term (Romans 5:14, 10:4). This hope for the Messiah's redemption and fulfillment, for Him to make their pious desires and pursuits whole and purified, underlies every aspect of the Old Testament, even that which was not intended to be prophetic. Often, even negative and incomplete images of Christ in the Old Testament still prefigure Him, as Christ simply redeemed them into fullness.
From the beginning of the Bible this is the case. God made man in the image of Himself - this is a prefiguring of Christ who is the full image of man and God at once and thus lends spiritual dignity to humanity. He then created Adam who was the first man, leading to the life of all others, prefigures both Christ's salvation unto eternal life of all humanity and, by Adam's original sin, Jesus' sacrifice which revoked this penalty and promised a cleansing of its effects. The flood of Noah prefigures baptism, while his ark represents both Mother Mary as the ark of the Word and the Church as the house of refuge for all. As St. Paul explains, the blood of the Passover of Moses prefigured the Eucharist, where those who have received the "mark" of Christ's blood will be passed over on Judgment Day (1 Corinthians 5:6-5:8).
The Promised Land, while also physical real estate, prefigured the universality of Heaven, as well as the Universal Church. Originally in the Promised Land, Jews had no king - they simply lived according to the Law of Moses directly, another image of Heaven. But eventually they requested a king. The song of the coronation of a king, as recorded in Isaiah (9:1-6), while talking about a very real and ultimately sinful human king, prefigures Christ the King in its hope for a true King who would rule the universe with perfect judgment.
In Old Testament Judaism, the Jewish congregation is called the Church, from which the Catholic Church proceeded. This Jewish Church possessed very similar rituals, procedures, readings, venerations and overall liturgy to the Catholic Mass, especially Jewish services at the Jerusalem Temple. The Bread of the Presence was kept in the Tabernacle, where it was believed God's real presence resided continually. Candles, incense and holy water were used for effect and symbolism. An altar was used for sacrifices, where it was believed the pouring of the blood and consumption of the body of a living thing would forgive sins by taking one's judgment onto itself - obviously prefiguring Christ's Crucifixion and the Eucharist. The Scriptures were given special reverence, read at every Temple service. These and many other features explicitly prefigure Christ and His Church. The Church, being universal and redeemed, simply takes the Jewish format and illuminates it with Roman and Christian traditions which do not truly violate the fundamental Jewish fabric.
Many would consider the use of this "typology", as the study of prefiguring is called, as "cheap", simply reading into it what we desire as Christians to validate our beliefs. While this goes against Christ's lordship of the entire Bible and insults our integrity, it also evidences an ignorance of the centrality of Messianic hope in Old Testament Judaism I described above, from which all their beliefs and practices derive whether consciously or not. Further, this is not simply a Jewish phenomenon. Fulfillment of prefiguring was used evangelically by the Church as she encountered new cultures and religions, seeing figments of the truth in them and illustrating Christ's fulfillment of them. For example, by studying the mythology of the Viking Norse culture, the Church saw a lack of hope, as the Norse believed the world would eventually end in a war that would destroy humanity and the gods forever. The Church answered this with Christ's triumph, and without coercion or intimidation, the Norse acknowledged this and began seeing Christ as the heroic All-Father deity who defeated evil and saved the world, just as He truly did.
Christ commanded us to "search the Scriptures" for Him - to discern the prefigured images of Him and His Gospel in the Old Testament. Many Christian congregations since the Protestant Reformation have abandoned their Jewish liturgical heritage, as well as an openness to deeper senses of Scripture. I believe this not only contradicts Christ's intentions for His Church, but also cuts them off from the fullness of liturgical life as God desires it. The Catholic Church is that fullness, and even "the gates of Hell" (Matthew 16:18) will not overcome it. As Catholics, we can share in the Messianic hope of the Jews - both in the fulfillment during Christ's life, and the certain hope of His apocalyptic Second Coming. Living in humble faith by this hope, enacted with contrite love, we can become the holy saints Christ desires.
There are many "senses" to Scripture - three, in fact. While it is not the intention of this article to delve into that specific topic, it should be noted that the Bible is too complex and intricate to be read only at face value, as some suggest. To do so is to overestimate oneself and underestimate the spiritual depth of the Bible and God Himself. The Bible of course is a recording of events and truth which preceded it, but in order to record and elucidate on them it must employ the widest possible range of literary senses and techniques. Furthermore, things such as historical context, religious usage and reference to other Biblical passages must be taken into account as well in the interpretation of Scripture.
Jews did not simply write the Old Testament to record history. They believed the events, and their own thoughts and experiences, to have spiritual importance and so were inspired by God to write them down. Each book of the Old Testament had a different author and/or style - genealogical, historical, prophetic, proverbial, poetic, etc. Each of these styles had a specific religious aim in mind, to describe a different aspect of Truth and God's revelation. The New Testament shows us an even greater depth to the Old Testament and an underlying thread which ties all of it together - Christ.
Christians often say this: Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. But what does this mean? To answer this, we must understand that Jews in the Old Testament were unified by a common belief: hope for the coming of the Messiah, of God's salvation of the world by replacing sin with redeemed perfection. Obviously, they did not know the specific plan God had in mind, even His prophets. But God revealed things to the Old Testament saints which prefigured Christ and the entire Gospel, as is St. Paul's use of the term (Romans 5:14, 10:4). This hope for the Messiah's redemption and fulfillment, for Him to make their pious desires and pursuits whole and purified, underlies every aspect of the Old Testament, even that which was not intended to be prophetic. Often, even negative and incomplete images of Christ in the Old Testament still prefigure Him, as Christ simply redeemed them into fullness.
From the beginning of the Bible this is the case. God made man in the image of Himself - this is a prefiguring of Christ who is the full image of man and God at once and thus lends spiritual dignity to humanity. He then created Adam who was the first man, leading to the life of all others, prefigures both Christ's salvation unto eternal life of all humanity and, by Adam's original sin, Jesus' sacrifice which revoked this penalty and promised a cleansing of its effects. The flood of Noah prefigures baptism, while his ark represents both Mother Mary as the ark of the Word and the Church as the house of refuge for all. As St. Paul explains, the blood of the Passover of Moses prefigured the Eucharist, where those who have received the "mark" of Christ's blood will be passed over on Judgment Day (1 Corinthians 5:6-5:8).
The Promised Land, while also physical real estate, prefigured the universality of Heaven, as well as the Universal Church. Originally in the Promised Land, Jews had no king - they simply lived according to the Law of Moses directly, another image of Heaven. But eventually they requested a king. The song of the coronation of a king, as recorded in Isaiah (9:1-6), while talking about a very real and ultimately sinful human king, prefigures Christ the King in its hope for a true King who would rule the universe with perfect judgment.
In Old Testament Judaism, the Jewish congregation is called the Church, from which the Catholic Church proceeded. This Jewish Church possessed very similar rituals, procedures, readings, venerations and overall liturgy to the Catholic Mass, especially Jewish services at the Jerusalem Temple. The Bread of the Presence was kept in the Tabernacle, where it was believed God's real presence resided continually. Candles, incense and holy water were used for effect and symbolism. An altar was used for sacrifices, where it was believed the pouring of the blood and consumption of the body of a living thing would forgive sins by taking one's judgment onto itself - obviously prefiguring Christ's Crucifixion and the Eucharist. The Scriptures were given special reverence, read at every Temple service. These and many other features explicitly prefigure Christ and His Church. The Church, being universal and redeemed, simply takes the Jewish format and illuminates it with Roman and Christian traditions which do not truly violate the fundamental Jewish fabric.
Many would consider the use of this "typology", as the study of prefiguring is called, as "cheap", simply reading into it what we desire as Christians to validate our beliefs. While this goes against Christ's lordship of the entire Bible and insults our integrity, it also evidences an ignorance of the centrality of Messianic hope in Old Testament Judaism I described above, from which all their beliefs and practices derive whether consciously or not. Further, this is not simply a Jewish phenomenon. Fulfillment of prefiguring was used evangelically by the Church as she encountered new cultures and religions, seeing figments of the truth in them and illustrating Christ's fulfillment of them. For example, by studying the mythology of the Viking Norse culture, the Church saw a lack of hope, as the Norse believed the world would eventually end in a war that would destroy humanity and the gods forever. The Church answered this with Christ's triumph, and without coercion or intimidation, the Norse acknowledged this and began seeing Christ as the heroic All-Father deity who defeated evil and saved the world, just as He truly did.
Christ commanded us to "search the Scriptures" for Him - to discern the prefigured images of Him and His Gospel in the Old Testament. Many Christian congregations since the Protestant Reformation have abandoned their Jewish liturgical heritage, as well as an openness to deeper senses of Scripture. I believe this not only contradicts Christ's intentions for His Church, but also cuts them off from the fullness of liturgical life as God desires it. The Catholic Church is that fullness, and even "the gates of Hell" (Matthew 16:18) will not overcome it. As Catholics, we can share in the Messianic hope of the Jews - both in the fulfillment during Christ's life, and the certain hope of His apocalyptic Second Coming. Living in humble faith by this hope, enacted with contrite love, we can become the holy saints Christ desires.
Tolkien and the Analogy of the Faith
Pope Benedict XVI often uses the phrase "the analogy of the faith". In
normal usage, analogy is inferring information about one thing or idea
and correlating it to another thing or idea to illustrate their
agreement and similarity. It is a central faculty of human cognition and
is used in almost everything we do, taking many different forms and
applications. But how is Pope Benedict using it here?
Christians, and their Jewish predecessors, have always understood that Truth cannot contradict itself. To be a full and complete truth, it must completely agree and have perfect consistency, explaining everything in existence. As such, Truth must be Divine, making it one aspect of God. Christ called Himself "the way, the Truth and the life". The faith which Christians have received from God by His personal revelation and natural law is the affirmation of this Truth by and in people. By revealing Himself to us as the answer and explanation of all the universe, including our very souls, we are called by Him to affirm and agree with that Truth, to live by it even if it is not always immediately obvious to us. This assent, acquiescence and obedience to the call of Truth is faith.
Pope Benedict's use of the term "analogy" does not truly deviate from its vernacular usage; he simply applies it to Truth as Christians know and follow it, and as all can see it in nature. Because the Truth is perfectly consistent and internally agrees with itself, the revelation which God has given to humanity in Tradition and nature are analogous to this Truth. Though they're separate from God, they reflect with perfect accuracy God's own Truth. By examining and experiencing revelation and life itself, we are able to infer the truths of God, learning the attributes, properties and philosophical meaning of things. From this wisdom, we can see its consistency and yet also its blatant lacking, which through God's personal revelation is shown to be fulfilled in Christ. This is the analogy of faith.
Another deeply faithful Catholic, though slightly older than the Pope, who frequently used the term analogy was the author and philologist J.R.R. Tolkien. Though in theory a part of the same cognitive process as analogy, Tolkien deplored the use of allegory in literature. To him, allegory is creating an entirely separate reality from this one, with no apparent connection to this one, but having no meaning in and of itself. Everything in this other, allegorical world simply represents things here, with only one possible meaning for everything in that other world and no intrinsic meaning otherwise. Tolkien believed this to limit the reader's experience, force the author's meaning on the reader, and betray the mythic literary method of having the other, supernatural, holy world of Heaven reflect into this world and be glimpsed in it through what he called "faerie". For Tolkien, mythic literature should satisfy our longing for Heaven and God's fulfillment of the world and our deepest spiritual desires, not alienate this world from its Creator.
Tolkien utilized two different analogical styles in his works: direct analogy and typology. Rather than having a separate allegorical world, Tolkien placed his literary world within the Christian cosmology, only from the perspective of his fictional characters and races. He created a mythology for his world parallel to the Christian cosmology, only from the perspective of Elves, described in his book The Silmarillion. Illuvatar, the Creator, made all the heavenly beings, the world and everything in it. Soon, one of these heavenly beings, called Valar, became rebellious and prideful, falling from grace and turning to evil, taking many Valar and their lessar counterparts, Maiar, with him. They conflicted with the work of the good beings, who continued actualizing Illuvatar's will. Eventually, some of the evil and good beings took physical form in the world to help or hurt Illuvatar's sentient species.
This is not simply a tale. When asked what God is Illuvatar, Tolkien replied, the God of Christianity. He frequently called his work a deeply Catholic endeavor, and said that it inspired everything he did in it. (See Tolkien's Letters for more information, compiled by Humphrey Carpenter and edited by Christopher Tolkien.) The Valar as archangels, Maiar angels; Morgoth, the original fallen Valar, is Satan; and the other fallen beings are demons, including Sauron. Later, the Istari, who are Maiar, are sent in physical form to unite and aid humanity against Sauron. An allegory would differ. Morgoth would not actually be Satan - he would represent Satan. But in Tolkien's world, there is no representation. Morgoth is Satan, and Illuvatar is God.
Tolkien also used typology. In the Bible, as explained by St. Paul, the Old Testament is full of types - images, characters and events which prefigure things in the New Testament, especially Christ. Noah's Ark prefigures Mary, the Church, etc.; the flood prefigures baptism, Christ's saving blood, etc. Everything means something, often many things at once. For Tolkien, whose stories are historical in time, many things in his world are types of Christian realities to come. This is a bit less obvious than the direct analogy, but no more real. For example, several characters in The Lord of the Rings are types of Christ. Frodo is a type of His priestly office; Aragon a type of his royal office; Gandalf a type of his prophetic office; etc. Lembas bread is a type of the Eucharist, as well as the Old Testament manna. While everything is a type of multiple things in Christianity, they are all types of something from it. Tolkien did this intentionally and considered it an integral part of mythopoeia, his own literary style.
Tolkien helped guide me to Catholicism, showing me through analogy the spirituality and Truth of Catholicism. I consider him one of the greatest and saintliest Catholics of all time, despite his recognition being primarily as an author and scholar. I pray for his intercession, and for the possibility of his Beatification by the Church, as well as for his continued assistance to converts coming home to God.
Christians, and their Jewish predecessors, have always understood that Truth cannot contradict itself. To be a full and complete truth, it must completely agree and have perfect consistency, explaining everything in existence. As such, Truth must be Divine, making it one aspect of God. Christ called Himself "the way, the Truth and the life". The faith which Christians have received from God by His personal revelation and natural law is the affirmation of this Truth by and in people. By revealing Himself to us as the answer and explanation of all the universe, including our very souls, we are called by Him to affirm and agree with that Truth, to live by it even if it is not always immediately obvious to us. This assent, acquiescence and obedience to the call of Truth is faith.
Pope Benedict's use of the term "analogy" does not truly deviate from its vernacular usage; he simply applies it to Truth as Christians know and follow it, and as all can see it in nature. Because the Truth is perfectly consistent and internally agrees with itself, the revelation which God has given to humanity in Tradition and nature are analogous to this Truth. Though they're separate from God, they reflect with perfect accuracy God's own Truth. By examining and experiencing revelation and life itself, we are able to infer the truths of God, learning the attributes, properties and philosophical meaning of things. From this wisdom, we can see its consistency and yet also its blatant lacking, which through God's personal revelation is shown to be fulfilled in Christ. This is the analogy of faith.
Another deeply faithful Catholic, though slightly older than the Pope, who frequently used the term analogy was the author and philologist J.R.R. Tolkien. Though in theory a part of the same cognitive process as analogy, Tolkien deplored the use of allegory in literature. To him, allegory is creating an entirely separate reality from this one, with no apparent connection to this one, but having no meaning in and of itself. Everything in this other, allegorical world simply represents things here, with only one possible meaning for everything in that other world and no intrinsic meaning otherwise. Tolkien believed this to limit the reader's experience, force the author's meaning on the reader, and betray the mythic literary method of having the other, supernatural, holy world of Heaven reflect into this world and be glimpsed in it through what he called "faerie". For Tolkien, mythic literature should satisfy our longing for Heaven and God's fulfillment of the world and our deepest spiritual desires, not alienate this world from its Creator.
Tolkien utilized two different analogical styles in his works: direct analogy and typology. Rather than having a separate allegorical world, Tolkien placed his literary world within the Christian cosmology, only from the perspective of his fictional characters and races. He created a mythology for his world parallel to the Christian cosmology, only from the perspective of Elves, described in his book The Silmarillion. Illuvatar, the Creator, made all the heavenly beings, the world and everything in it. Soon, one of these heavenly beings, called Valar, became rebellious and prideful, falling from grace and turning to evil, taking many Valar and their lessar counterparts, Maiar, with him. They conflicted with the work of the good beings, who continued actualizing Illuvatar's will. Eventually, some of the evil and good beings took physical form in the world to help or hurt Illuvatar's sentient species.
This is not simply a tale. When asked what God is Illuvatar, Tolkien replied, the God of Christianity. He frequently called his work a deeply Catholic endeavor, and said that it inspired everything he did in it. (See Tolkien's Letters for more information, compiled by Humphrey Carpenter and edited by Christopher Tolkien.) The Valar as archangels, Maiar angels; Morgoth, the original fallen Valar, is Satan; and the other fallen beings are demons, including Sauron. Later, the Istari, who are Maiar, are sent in physical form to unite and aid humanity against Sauron. An allegory would differ. Morgoth would not actually be Satan - he would represent Satan. But in Tolkien's world, there is no representation. Morgoth is Satan, and Illuvatar is God.
Tolkien also used typology. In the Bible, as explained by St. Paul, the Old Testament is full of types - images, characters and events which prefigure things in the New Testament, especially Christ. Noah's Ark prefigures Mary, the Church, etc.; the flood prefigures baptism, Christ's saving blood, etc. Everything means something, often many things at once. For Tolkien, whose stories are historical in time, many things in his world are types of Christian realities to come. This is a bit less obvious than the direct analogy, but no more real. For example, several characters in The Lord of the Rings are types of Christ. Frodo is a type of His priestly office; Aragon a type of his royal office; Gandalf a type of his prophetic office; etc. Lembas bread is a type of the Eucharist, as well as the Old Testament manna. While everything is a type of multiple things in Christianity, they are all types of something from it. Tolkien did this intentionally and considered it an integral part of mythopoeia, his own literary style.
Tolkien helped guide me to Catholicism, showing me through analogy the spirituality and Truth of Catholicism. I consider him one of the greatest and saintliest Catholics of all time, despite his recognition being primarily as an author and scholar. I pray for his intercession, and for the possibility of his Beatification by the Church, as well as for his continued assistance to converts coming home to God.
God-incidence
Many events in our lives seem random, unguided and meaningless,
completely by chance. Whether they affect us positively or negatively is
attributed to good or bad luck. This practice has been done for as long
as humanity has considered such things. The ancient Romans believed in a
deity of luck, Fortuna. Japanese mythology has Seven Lucky Gods, and
Hindus often pray for good fortune from their deity of money and luck,
Lakshmi. The Irish four leaf clover is often a symbol for luck, and
esoteric practices such as numerology, astrology, and palmistry depend
on the luck afforded by one's spiritual station in the cosmos.
Luck is, however, contradictory to the religious mind, especially that of a Christian. By attributing an event to random chance, we remove God's dominion over all things, and we also deny the free will and independance of people. Nothing happens for a reason - there are no coincidences, only God-incidences, as a friend of mine is fond of saying. As the Lord, the King of the universe, everything that occurs in His Creation must be purposed and meaningful, and must ultimately meet up with His desires. And in His omniscience, while simultaneously giving people free will, He also knows the future and the effects of our actions, giving Him the ability to make our choices mean something and have a purpose even against our own intentions.
The assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981, while terrible, involved a miracle, a test of the Pope's forgiveness, and a sign to the world of the beauty of forgiveness. As he said: "Could I forget that the event [Ali Ağca's assassination attempt] in St. Peter's Square took place on the day and at the hour when the first appearance of the Mother of Christ to the poor little peasants has been remembered for over sixty years at Fátima, Portugal? For in everything that happened to me on that very day, I felt that extraordinary motherly protection and care, which turned out to be stronger than the deadly bullet." —Pope John Paul II -Memory & Identity, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2005, p.184
Nothing is outside God's purposes, even evil, which as the Book of Job and Christ's temptations in the desert illustrates are tests of our spiritual fortitude and, if suffered, builds character and is rewarded with grace. In our daily lives, as we experience pain, temptation, our own sin and the sins of others, we are called to suffer them for Christ's sake, to remain good and faithful despite our troubles. Many experience pain, but few truly suffer. Satan offers us sin as a temporary salve to our pain and so we prefer it over suffering. This is the test we are presented with on a daily basis, in even the smallest things. But Satan is not outside God's control; he does nothing without God's permission, which He gives to test us. The smallest gifts as well, simple comforts and daily rewards, are also given by God, both for consolation, thankfulness to Him, and reciprocal generosity to others.
In a deeper, more philosophical sense, luck is an attitude that creates a worldview. It often leads to the Platonic, Lutheran and Gnostic error that God has nothing to do with this world, which is itself wholly evil and worthless, incapable of showing any sign of God's divinity or salvation. By attributing events to random chance, we are saying that the nature of things, the arrangement of the world, the occurance of events and the Church Herself is random. But in truth, nothing in this universe is random. In truth, things could be different than they are. There are infinite other ways this world, history and humanity could be - yet, there is only one way. And the specific nature and condition of things is like the stylistic signs of an artist represented through the artwork. By deciphering the living spiritual symbolism in the world, by philosophically, conscientiously and scientifically examining life and ourselves, illuminated by Revelation, we can gain a mirror-image glimpse of the Face of God, revealed as His Son, the Logos - meaning, purpose, intention - of all Creation.
Luck is, however, contradictory to the religious mind, especially that of a Christian. By attributing an event to random chance, we remove God's dominion over all things, and we also deny the free will and independance of people. Nothing happens for a reason - there are no coincidences, only God-incidences, as a friend of mine is fond of saying. As the Lord, the King of the universe, everything that occurs in His Creation must be purposed and meaningful, and must ultimately meet up with His desires. And in His omniscience, while simultaneously giving people free will, He also knows the future and the effects of our actions, giving Him the ability to make our choices mean something and have a purpose even against our own intentions.
The assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981, while terrible, involved a miracle, a test of the Pope's forgiveness, and a sign to the world of the beauty of forgiveness. As he said: "Could I forget that the event [Ali Ağca's assassination attempt] in St. Peter's Square took place on the day and at the hour when the first appearance of the Mother of Christ to the poor little peasants has been remembered for over sixty years at Fátima, Portugal? For in everything that happened to me on that very day, I felt that extraordinary motherly protection and care, which turned out to be stronger than the deadly bullet." —Pope John Paul II -Memory & Identity, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2005, p.184
Nothing is outside God's purposes, even evil, which as the Book of Job and Christ's temptations in the desert illustrates are tests of our spiritual fortitude and, if suffered, builds character and is rewarded with grace. In our daily lives, as we experience pain, temptation, our own sin and the sins of others, we are called to suffer them for Christ's sake, to remain good and faithful despite our troubles. Many experience pain, but few truly suffer. Satan offers us sin as a temporary salve to our pain and so we prefer it over suffering. This is the test we are presented with on a daily basis, in even the smallest things. But Satan is not outside God's control; he does nothing without God's permission, which He gives to test us. The smallest gifts as well, simple comforts and daily rewards, are also given by God, both for consolation, thankfulness to Him, and reciprocal generosity to others.
In a deeper, more philosophical sense, luck is an attitude that creates a worldview. It often leads to the Platonic, Lutheran and Gnostic error that God has nothing to do with this world, which is itself wholly evil and worthless, incapable of showing any sign of God's divinity or salvation. By attributing events to random chance, we are saying that the nature of things, the arrangement of the world, the occurance of events and the Church Herself is random. But in truth, nothing in this universe is random. In truth, things could be different than they are. There are infinite other ways this world, history and humanity could be - yet, there is only one way. And the specific nature and condition of things is like the stylistic signs of an artist represented through the artwork. By deciphering the living spiritual symbolism in the world, by philosophically, conscientiously and scientifically examining life and ourselves, illuminated by Revelation, we can gain a mirror-image glimpse of the Face of God, revealed as His Son, the Logos - meaning, purpose, intention - of all Creation.
Dialogue with Attitude
All Christians are called to "(a)lways be prepared to give an answer to
everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But
do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so
that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ
may be ashamed of their slander." -1 Peter 3:15-16. Throughout history,
the Catholic Church has been the foremost agent of evangelism,
apologetics and living by example for the conversion and charitable
consolation of all people. While I believe these methods are highly
commendable, successful and good, I think there is another side to
religious dialogue that is often forgotten, except perhaps in living by
example: attitude.
Apologetics specifically uses reason, which attempts to elucidate God's presence in the universe through its logical order and philosophical nature, and to connect this with His Revelation, answering the endless que of intellectual arguments and issued posed to the Church. Catholics and non-Catholics alike have intellectual problems that Church apologists, and Christians in their daily lives, try to answer with reason and faith. But the intellect is often not the deepest motivation people have for their worldview and choices. In my experience, their intellectual arguments are frequently a facade to cover their personal, emotional motivations. This creates an attitude that colors the very way they view the Church, and distorts the reasoning until they are completely unreceptive to Catholicism - what the Church calls "invincible ignorance". However, most people's ignorance is not invincible; only preferable to them. All of us, even the most devout, have this problem to a degree, but some let it affect their entire religious and philosophical beliefs to take them away from the Church.
Many people prefer what they were "raised in" over the Church; many have a certain sin or sins which they have a deep affection for and so create logical excuses and doubts to distract from guilt and Christian repentance; many prefer to appear "intelligent", "mature" or "cultured" by not being Catholic or even Christian, this often leading university students away from the faith; and many Catholics let their personal biases, culture and sinful inclinations taint their worldview and actions, whether towards fundamentalism or liberality. Though pride prevents admission of this fact, it creates a rift in religious dialogue and apologetics. When reason is implemented purely as a facade to present intellectual excuses for some deeper attitude problem, apologetics breaks down and is virtually useless, beyond the planting of a spiritual seed in the person's soul.
I believe that the Church should continue publishing apologetic documents open to the public, so that anyone acquiescent to the pull of the Spirit to their true Home can have a resource for their genuine intellectual dilemmas. But I also believe that Catholics should focus on their personal holiness and living by example, being as devout and charitable as possible, while understanding their faith as deeply as they can, only giving a rational response when specifically asked, or in a more open, unsolicited theological publication as "faith seeking understanding" rather than specifically for apologetics. When in a discussion and it is evident that the non-Catholic is emotionally biased, I think the Catholic should "agree to disagree" and move on, praying for the person and remaining open, but living by example primarily.
Apologetics specifically uses reason, which attempts to elucidate God's presence in the universe through its logical order and philosophical nature, and to connect this with His Revelation, answering the endless que of intellectual arguments and issued posed to the Church. Catholics and non-Catholics alike have intellectual problems that Church apologists, and Christians in their daily lives, try to answer with reason and faith. But the intellect is often not the deepest motivation people have for their worldview and choices. In my experience, their intellectual arguments are frequently a facade to cover their personal, emotional motivations. This creates an attitude that colors the very way they view the Church, and distorts the reasoning until they are completely unreceptive to Catholicism - what the Church calls "invincible ignorance". However, most people's ignorance is not invincible; only preferable to them. All of us, even the most devout, have this problem to a degree, but some let it affect their entire religious and philosophical beliefs to take them away from the Church.
Many people prefer what they were "raised in" over the Church; many have a certain sin or sins which they have a deep affection for and so create logical excuses and doubts to distract from guilt and Christian repentance; many prefer to appear "intelligent", "mature" or "cultured" by not being Catholic or even Christian, this often leading university students away from the faith; and many Catholics let their personal biases, culture and sinful inclinations taint their worldview and actions, whether towards fundamentalism or liberality. Though pride prevents admission of this fact, it creates a rift in religious dialogue and apologetics. When reason is implemented purely as a facade to present intellectual excuses for some deeper attitude problem, apologetics breaks down and is virtually useless, beyond the planting of a spiritual seed in the person's soul.
I believe that the Church should continue publishing apologetic documents open to the public, so that anyone acquiescent to the pull of the Spirit to their true Home can have a resource for their genuine intellectual dilemmas. But I also believe that Catholics should focus on their personal holiness and living by example, being as devout and charitable as possible, while understanding their faith as deeply as they can, only giving a rational response when specifically asked, or in a more open, unsolicited theological publication as "faith seeking understanding" rather than specifically for apologetics. When in a discussion and it is evident that the non-Catholic is emotionally biased, I think the Catholic should "agree to disagree" and move on, praying for the person and remaining open, but living by example primarily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)