(Go read it, it’s short and good)

–Jason

In digging into it, I found a link to Aquinas’ “Whether Determinate Things Are Required For a Sacrament“[1] and I was reminded why I love Aquinas so much. He can pack SO much truth into just one sentence, it’s insane. The question he’s dealing with is basically ‘since Sacraments are spiritual in nature, they don’t need any physical thing at all (no stole, no wafer, no oil, etc)’. Aquinas answers (in short) that we as humans don’t have the power to sanctify anything. That is totally God’s. So God alone can determine what, if any, physical items are required for sanctification through the sacraments.

But buried in there, is this sentence: “Since, therefore, the sanctification of man is in the power of God Who sanctifies, it is not for man to decide what things should be used for his sanctification, but this should be determined by Divine institution.” That’s beautiful.

I may be dedicated enough to start reading the Summa again through this. Unfortunately, getting a printed copy of it is prohibitively expensive. I should have just had it printed while I was at GaTech… I’m pretty sure I had a soft copy at the time…

[1] Note for those new to the Summa Theologica: Each article is put together in this order: First is a question which Aquinas seeks to answer. Then there are some (usually 3) objections, which are usually very well argued, but subtly wrong thoughts on the matter at hand. Then there is ‘On the Contrary’ which is a basic statement of the true answer (according to Aquinas), and then answers to each of the objections.

In this series of posts, I’ll attempt to answer some of these questions. These will also be posted in the comment box over at imonk.

The first question:

1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers? More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?

I might be able to shed some light on some of these (ok, this is getting a lot longer than I thought. This post will tackle the first question. I’ll attempt to get to the rest later):

I believe this hinges on what you mean by ‘valid ministers’. The Catholic concept of Holy Orders brings with it several other things of note. The first would be the ability to be ministers of the sacraments, and the second would be the three ‘levels’ of holy orders (diaconate, priesthood, and bishopric).

Each ‘level’ can do different things. The Diaconate’s main job is ‘proclaiming of the word’. That is bringing the scriptures to the people by reading and preaching. They also may be ministers of the sacrament of marriage and baptism. Priests can do all the above, plus Reconciliation, Holy Communion, and Anointing of the Sick. Bishops may do all of the above, and in addition may confirm[1] and may be the minister of Holy Orders.

So, knowing all of this, we come back to the initial question: would a Protestant minister be a ‘valid minister’.

If by ‘valid minister’ you mean ‘partaking in the graces of Holy Orders’, then I believe the answer would have to be an emphatic ‘no’[2]. If by ‘valid minister’ you mean ‘Someone who preaches the word, and attempts to bring his/her fellow people to holiness’, then I believe the answer would be somewhere between ‘it depends’, and ‘yes’.

The Catholic Church has a long tradition of people being preachers who are outside the sacrament of Holy Orders. Should you ever run into a ‘brother’ or ‘friar’[3], you’re most likely not talking to someone who has Holy Orders, but someone who is trying to live a life of holiness, and bringing others to that life.

Should a Protestant minister convert to Catholicism, and show sufficient knowledge and fidelity to the teachings of Catholicism, it wouldn’t surprise me if they could be brought quickly into the Diaconate. Note: This would be a pastoral decision made by the local bishop, rather than a specific procedure/ruling from Rome. It would depend on many other factors as well.

So, the brief answer to the question is that a Protestant minister could be akin to a minister without Holy Orders within the Catholic Church.

[1] Priests may confirm when given direct permission from the Bishop for that instance of Confirmation.
[2] For the record, I’m leaving aside the more tangled questions of ministers from the Eastern Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalian, and (some?) Lutheran traditions.
[3] Though ‘friar’ may be a more generic term for someone in a religious order, regardless of their ‘level’ in Holy Orders or lack there of.

The Map Discussion

It’s long, but worth the read.

Matt 6:9b-13:

Our Father in Heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be dome, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread; and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.

Luke 11:2-4:

Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom fome. Give us each day our daily bread and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone in debt to us, and do not subject us to the final test.

Today’s version of the Our Father:

Our Father, Who Art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day, our daily bread And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from Evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, now and forever, Amen.

How often do we pray this prayer? But how often do we actually think about what those phrases mean?

Our Father. Collective.

Hallowed be thy name. Two meanings: 1) may your name be held as holy here on this earth, and 2) may you come, show your glory, and make it be held as holy. This second one relates to…

Thy kingdom come. May the second coming, the time of the end be soon. Bring your kingdom to fulfillment.

Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. May We do your will. May your will be done in our lives.

Give us this day, our daily bread. Two possible meanings. 1) Give us the bread we need to sustain us today. Give us what we need to survive… grace, provisions, food, companionship, etc. 2) Give us our future bread. Give us the bread of the wedding feast of the lamb. Bring us to the future kingdom.

And now for the real kicker: and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. The first clause is very bold of us. We’re asking the lawgiver to forgive us our transgressions against His holy law. The laws he put down for our own good, which we have broken. But not only that, we are called to forgive each other as well. As much as we forgive, will be forgiven us.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. This phrasing isn’t found in the scriptural accounts of the Lords Prayer. Or if it is, it has a very different sense… “Do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one” is in Matthew, and “and do not subject us to the final test” is in Luke. The end of time is promised to be a crazy time of tribulation. These lurid descriptions can be found in revelations. The end of this prayer is asking us to be spared this trial. The current sense has a lot of insight in it as well. Asking that we might be lead AWAY from temptation, and asking that evil might not befall us.

Note still, this is a communal phrasing. All the pronouns are ‘us’ and ‘our’. Lead all of us from evil, give all of us our daily bread. Thy will be done on ALL the earth.

“An understood god is no god”

“We religious leaders need to look very much more deeply. We can so easily have talks with people, and they can say we have helped, write us grateful letters, even stand steady for a time till the juice we have put into them runs out; but, we may have brought them no hunger for God — because that hunger is no ache in our own heart — nor brought them anywhere near to the end of self.”

“Consider how august a privilege it is, when angels are present, and archangels throng around, when cherubim and seraphim encircle with their blaze the throne, that a mortal may approach with unrestrained confidence, and converse with heaven’s dread Sovereign! O, what honor was ever conferred like this?”

“Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God’s mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.”

“Consider how [Jesus Christ] teaches us to be humble, by making us see that our virtue does not depend on our work alone but on grace from on high. He commands each of the faithful who prays to do so universally, for the whole world. For he did not say “thy will be done in me or in us,” but “on earth,” the whole earth, so that error may be banished from it, truth take root in it, all vice be destroyed on it, virtue flourish on it, and earth no longer differ from heaven.”

“If you say, “Would there were no wine” because of the drunkards, then you must say, going on by degrees, “Would there were no steel,” because of the murderers, “Would there were no night,” because of the thieves, “Would there were no light,” because of the informers, and “Would there were no women,” because of adultery.”

“Feeding the hungry is a greater work than raising the dead.”

“It is possible to offer fervent prayer even while walking in public or strolling alone, or seated in your shop, … while buying or selling, … or even while cooking.”

Person B, after living as a Christian for some years, comes to believe a different theological concept.

Both have researched. Both have studied the ancient manuscripts, and have learned the original languages.

Who’s right? Who has some to a firmer hold of Truth, and who has taken a firmer hold of Error?

Where can we go from here? This could turn into a nice discourse on the need for the Catholic concept of Authority. It could easily turn into a nice discussion on the problems our Protestant brothers and sisters have with division.

The more dangerous ground it could lead into is the topic of relativism… throwing out the concepts of ‘perfect truth’ in favor of ‘the truth we have now’. Truth as subject to time as it were.

But as worthy as these discussions might be, there might be a larger picture out there. The challenge for Person A and B is to simultaneously chase further after perfect truth, while at the same time loving, befriending, and walking with the other.

Some people would conceive the world as us emulating the angels, dancing for greater balance on the pinhead of truth, surrounded by the vast universe of error.

It may just be that if we strive to emulate the Mercy of God (‘forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us’) , we might just find a greater truth.

The danger here is discerning whether errors can be ‘important’ (which must be the case, so that relativism can’t be, and the Bible is upheld), and then discerning which errors are important (which is hard (see Jimmy Akin and his concept of ‘High Context/Low Context[1]‘ cultures for just one example), and then what to do about them (which is rough).

Thoughts on my mind.

[1] “This is one reason that the Bible is as mysterious as it is: It was written in a high context culture that assumed the reader already knew the background to the documents, so it doesn’t waste time explaining that background.” http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/john_allen_has_.html

These honesty moments are the greese that keeps a group healthy and strong and bonded. The challenge is keeping the group 1) open/accepting of those moments 2) ready to respond to them in a holy and healthy way, 3) what to do in the ‘dry spells’ between these bombs, and 4) Not letting a lack of these ‘bombs’ make it seem like the group isn’t ‘open’ to new honesty.

More to come on this topic (and how it relates to reconciliation)

Relevant Scripture texts:

Luke 1:13-17 (Angels intro) Luke 1:42-46 (Elizabeth and the womb leap)
Matt 3 (intro)

Luke 7:20 (Disciples of John come to Jesus)

Luke 7:33 (not eating or drinking)

Matt 14:8 (death of John) And Mark 6

Mal 4:5 (prophesy of Elijah coming back)

(Note: This talk is being given Monday, August 28th, the day before the feast day of John the Baptist’s death)

(beginning of the talk itself:)

Tomorrow is a feast day of a unique person in scripture. John the Baptist fits in as a bridge between the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant, between the time of Prophets, and the time of Apostles.

One thing is certain however, he died like a lot of Prophets and Apostles. Herod was in charge of Judea at the time, and he married his brother’s wife. The wife didn’t mind, apparently because Herod was in charge, and that gave her more power (as far as I can tell). But John called Herod out on it… loudly and repeatedly; so much so, that Herod had to throw him in prison, to maintain his authority. Herodotus didn’t like the fact that John was alive, but scripture tells us that Herod liked to listen to John. But eventually came the dance. The daughter of Herodotus danced for the court, and Herod was drunk. Herod promised her anything, even up to half the kingdom. The daughter conferred with her mother, and the request came back: give me the head of John the Baptist on a silver platter. (You can find this story in Matthew 14 and Mark 6)

But what else do we know? We know his taste in clothes ran towards the… uncomfortable… Camel hair isn’t very soft. One thing you might not know is that many holy men and women have made a ‘hair shirt’ to wear. This garment is designed to be very uncomfortable.

And his diet probably made it worse… The Angel that announced his forthcoming birth forbade him from “Wine or Strong Drink” before Elizabeth even knew she was pregnant. No, he dined on “Locusts and wild honey”. Remember, honey didn’t come in jars then. Wild honey had to be found in cracks of certain dead trees. The bees don’t like giving up their honey either.

So, picture John with me. First, he’s wearing a hair shirt. Second, he’s got bee stings all over him, and he has a habit of eating large grasshoppers (some of these could be as long as 6 inches).

Then listen to him. He’s preaching to the multitudes, and saying some pretty interesting things:

“Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near”

“Prepare the Way of the Lord. Make His path’s straight”

And then this polite statement to the Scribes and Pharisees: from Matthew 3:7-12

You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit worthy of repentance. Do not presume to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. “I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

These are some intense words. “Brood of Vipers” isn’t very complimentary.

So, what does this mean for us? John’s central message to us center around 2 things: 1) Repentance and 2) Presumption.

We all know of repentance. It’s something I certainly need to get to know better. Repentance is the God inspired desire to never commit sin again. I don’t know about you, but I get sick and tired of going to reconciliation, and going through basically the same list of sins, just with new instances of them. But I hear a talk from Scott Hahn in the back of my head where he said the same thing in confession once, and the priest responded “would you rather have new ones?”

But the thing I want to talk about a little more closely is ‘presumption’. To ‘presume’ something (to have presumption) is to have, or feel like you have a sense of entitlement. John saw clearly the presumption on ancestry in the Jews of his day. What presumption did the Jews face, and what do we face today? The Jews of those days often thought like this: “We’re the descendants of Abraham. We’ve got it made in the shade. God loves us, and hates everyone else, so we just have to sit back, and wait on the Messiah to come through, kick everyone else into submission, and then sit back and laugh.”

That’s the attitude that John is addressing. Jesus and Paul both later attacks the same attitude.

But the same sinful nature attacks me as well, just in slightly different costumes.

Do I blithely assume that God will take care of everything and we do nothing, falling prey to sloth?

Do I do everything for ourselves, assuming that God ‘helps those who help themselves’, and fall prey to pride?

Do I watch TV, getting enamored with the glamour of Hollywood, and desiring it, fall prey to envy?

Do I consume everything that we desire, and fall prey to gluttony?

Do I use others for our pleasure, with our eyes, or otherwise, and fall prey to lust?

Do I silently brood over the injustices over the world, and fall prey to anger?

Do I hoard our blessings of leadership, of service, and of prayer, and fall prey to greed?

I’ve shifted gears here from presumption to sin, but each of these can be presumed upon… ‘Oh, God isn’t so concerned with that. It’s not that important.’ John the Baptist would have some similar words for me in this time, that he had for the scribes in his own day: ‘Repent!’.

(hat tip to Jimmy Akin who linked to this article on how Ratzinger has developed from an active participant in Vatican II through his life, and now as Pope Benedict XVI).

Marian Maximalism is a great Marian devotion, which contends that since Mary is the most perfect of all of creation, and as the ‘masterpiece of God’, any praise and adoration given to her reflects off, and is actually praise of her Creator. For people who adhere to this theory, no devotion can be too great.

Marian Minimalism also grants all the historical titles that Mary as been acclaimed by through the centuries. However, it is uncomfortable with the extremes of devotion that some in the Marian Maximalism camp partake in.

This debate has been raging in my heart for years. By nature, I am inclined more towards the minimalist side of the debate, but I can understand the argument that Marian Maximalism puts forward.

What brought this debate up recently is a discussion I was having with someone from Latin America. She was telling me that in the culture that she had experienced, “The Virgin was everything.” That they barely even think of Jesus and the Father, and the Spirit at all.

This bothers me greatly.

Jesus, and His sacrifice was the focal point of history. (the Maximalist responds that ‘No Mary = No Jesus’, and follows up with Mary sharing in Cavalry, and pointing to the ‘sword that will pierce your heart’.)

The thought that I came up with at lunch today was a little twist on the first argument that the maximalists reach for… What mother wants praise, when her Son is more worthy of it?

More to come, but these were just some thoughts tumbling through my head.