St Athanasius: Pray for us!
I got into a conversation with a lovely nurse from my ward, who tried to convince me that I shouldn't be Catholic, and sent me an email exaplining the reasons why, I thought I would post my response here. Comments welcome
Hello Christine,
may God give you His peace!
Thank you for emailing me so quickly, I appreciate you taking so much time. I understand that you are saying this out of a love for God and for me. Some of my (Catholic) friends get irritated by other Christians who try to convince us that the Church is in opposition to the Gospel, but I have a lot more respect for these Christians than people who say that it's all the same whatever Christian tradition you belong to. After all, if I believed that someone was commiting the sin of idolatry I hope I would have the courage to tell them so.
I hope you don't mind, but I've shared your email with a friend of mine who's studying theology at the university, who has helped me with some of the points I was unsure about, let me first begin by explaining where I stand.
My primary intention is not so much to change the way you worship the Lord, but to explain the beliefs of the Catholic Church. One of our deceased archbishops, Fulton Sheen, said that very few Americans hate the Catholic Church, however very many hate what they believe is the Catholic Church. I think, Christine, that your understanding of the Church is inaccurate, and that in trying to serve the Lord, you are in fact driving people away from Him, and the main reason I would like to explain my understanding of my faith to you is becuase I'm sure that in your life you will come across very many Catholics who don't know and love the Church, and so will be convinced by what you say to leave her, and I think that would be tragic.
I'd also like to mention that I think we share the belief that Jesus is everything. He is my breath and heartbeat, the centre of my life, and if I believed that what you said was true I would not hesitate to leave the Church.
The first verse you quoted was from Psalm 138 (thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.) This brought to mind two things, obviously there is the Word of God, as spoken about in the begining of John's Gospel, and I imagine this psalm could be refering to Christ, who is magnified above all things.
In addition to this, the Catholic Church has never, and will never, deny the unique importance of Scripture. This quote from the Catechism is quite long, but is only a part of the sections of the Catechism dedicated entirely to the importance of Scripture in our faith.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God". "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."
II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
CCC 105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."
CCC 107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
2 Timothy 3:16,17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
The Church agrees with this entirely, and the Holy Scriptures are seen as exactly that, but nowhere does the bible state the doctrine of Scripture ALONE. Again, if you read these sections of the Catechism, which is the official teaching of the Church, I don't think you will find anything you disagree with in the exalted position the Church gives to Scripture.
It is true that many Catholics don't know and love the Bible as they should, but the Church continuously tells her members that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and should be read and studied and loved. Every day when I go to mass 3 passages (4 on Sundays) of Scripture are read, one from the Gospels, a psalm, and one other, and it is my practice (as many Catholics do) to read and study and pray with these passages, so that when I attend mass later in the day, these scriptures are alive for me, and should be further explained in the sermon the priest gives. Infact, these scriptures are on a 3 year cycle, so if someone attends mass every Sunday for 3 years they will hear all of the Gospels read to them, and if they attend every day, they will hear almost all of the Bible (I think it's all of the New Testament, and most of the Old). Sadly, many Catholics don't obey the Church, as you will know from Catholics you've met, or those you see in the media, but many Christians do not follow the Bible, and this doesn't mean that the Bible is not the inspired word of God. Likewise, the refusal of Catholics to listen to the Church does not mean that the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ institued, and protects from error (Matthew 16:18 ...And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it)
Next, adding to Scriptures, my friends Adam has just written an essay on this, so he's answered, he tends to go on a bit, so this is quite long, but I think it's clear?
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,
Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it
The quote from Revelation is clear: "from the words of the book of this prophecy" surely you dont believe that all the New Testament is a prophecy?
The quote from Deuteronomy is speaking specifically of the Deutronomical Covenant, that given to Moses and the Isrealites at that time, we don't follow all of the prescriptions of that covenant, I'm sure you know many examples, such as Deuteronomy chapter 12:23 "Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.", in addition to this the New Testament adds to the Old, Jesus Himself said: "a new commandment I give unto you" (John 13:34). Was He disobeying God in this?
None of these arguments you present refer to anything specific on sola scriptura, how can John be referring to the Bible as a whole, when he wrote there was no such thing as the New Testament canon? The first new testament canon was formed in 160AD by a heretic called Marcion who formed a heavily edited Luke and 10 of Pauls letters, at least 60 years after Revelation was written!
And even this isn't the one we use now, it was only after that when orthodox (representing the Church as it was at the time) canons of NT scripture began to appear. And what measure was used to decide which books were suitable for the New Testament? It was how far they followed the orthodoxy of the Church, which had been defined, not by sola scriptura but by following sacred tradition, which is completely biblical in itself "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15). "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
And who were the main characters invoved in forming these canons? The first person to declare the canon of scripture which we follow today was Athanasius in Ad367; his canon was accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Churches and formally defined by the institutional Church at the Council of Rome in 382. Before this, there was all sorts of argument over what went in to the New Testament canon, some wanted the Didache to go in, and the Corinthians wanted the first letter of Pope Clement I (which advocates apostolic tradition) to go in it.
Athanasius, also accepted the role of tradition, "Again we write, again keeping to the Apostolic Traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, "we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day," as the Psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven". (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330])
and
"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able." (ibid., 29)
So who was it who decided what stayed in the Bible and what didnt? There were so many different canons, most agreeing on the 4 gospels and maybe 5 of Pauls letters, but the final word of the rest came from the Catholic (universal) Church. It was only when it defined what was scriptural and what wasnt that people stopped arguing.
I also discussed that passage from 1 Timothy with Adam, and he was able to explain to me the context it was written in, at that time the Church was being attacked by gnosticism. The belief of gnostics is that the body is evil, and the spirit is good, and we need to use knowledge to enlarge our minds and so work our way to heaven. Clearly this is in opposition to the Gospel, and Paul writes to couter this tendancy which was spreading. Many of the gnostics, in their idea that the body is evil, believed that sex is also evil, and it follows that marriage is evil. They therefore forbid their followers to marry, and it is this that Paul is speaking against.
In another of Paul's letters, to the Corinthians, he advocates remaining unmarried: "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I." (1 Cor 7:7,8) clearly he felt it was not wrong to abstain from marriage, what was wrong was to forbid people to marry.
The Church forbids no one to marry. I could marry if I wanted to, I would not be able to be a nun, because being a nun is about that total gift of self to God that Paul also lived in his life. But I could be just as blessed, and just as close to God in the eyes of the Church, indeed, the vocation to marriage, to be a wife and a mother is so beautiful, and the Church never seeks to undervalue it, but as everyone has their proper gift of God, if it is your gift to be a priest or a monk or a nun, you will not marry.
Incidentally, the idea of a celibate priesthood is not an unchangeable teaching, the Church may at some point choose to allow married men to become priests, and Anglican priests who become Catholic can become Catholic priests even if they are married. It's a custom because of the beautful gift of celibacy, I'd love to talk more about that, but this email is already very long!
I'll have a look at those websites you mentioned, and if you would like to raise any more questions please do, I would really love to talk more about this with you. If you feel anything I have said opposes the bible please let me know. I don't think it does, but maybe I haven't explained properly.
Anyway, let's pray for each other.
God bless you,
Hello Christine,
may God give you His peace!
Thank you for emailing me so quickly, I appreciate you taking so much time. I understand that you are saying this out of a love for God and for me. Some of my (Catholic) friends get irritated by other Christians who try to convince us that the Church is in opposition to the Gospel, but I have a lot more respect for these Christians than people who say that it's all the same whatever Christian tradition you belong to. After all, if I believed that someone was commiting the sin of idolatry I hope I would have the courage to tell them so.
I hope you don't mind, but I've shared your email with a friend of mine who's studying theology at the university, who has helped me with some of the points I was unsure about, let me first begin by explaining where I stand.
My primary intention is not so much to change the way you worship the Lord, but to explain the beliefs of the Catholic Church. One of our deceased archbishops, Fulton Sheen, said that very few Americans hate the Catholic Church, however very many hate what they believe is the Catholic Church. I think, Christine, that your understanding of the Church is inaccurate, and that in trying to serve the Lord, you are in fact driving people away from Him, and the main reason I would like to explain my understanding of my faith to you is becuase I'm sure that in your life you will come across very many Catholics who don't know and love the Church, and so will be convinced by what you say to leave her, and I think that would be tragic.
I'd also like to mention that I think we share the belief that Jesus is everything. He is my breath and heartbeat, the centre of my life, and if I believed that what you said was true I would not hesitate to leave the Church.
The first verse you quoted was from Psalm 138 (thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.) This brought to mind two things, obviously there is the Word of God, as spoken about in the begining of John's Gospel, and I imagine this psalm could be refering to Christ, who is magnified above all things.
In addition to this, the Catholic Church has never, and will never, deny the unique importance of Scripture. This quote from the Catechism is quite long, but is only a part of the sections of the Catechism dedicated entirely to the importance of Scripture in our faith.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God". "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."
II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
CCC 105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."
CCC 107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
2 Timothy 3:16,17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
The Church agrees with this entirely, and the Holy Scriptures are seen as exactly that, but nowhere does the bible state the doctrine of Scripture ALONE. Again, if you read these sections of the Catechism, which is the official teaching of the Church, I don't think you will find anything you disagree with in the exalted position the Church gives to Scripture.
It is true that many Catholics don't know and love the Bible as they should, but the Church continuously tells her members that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and should be read and studied and loved. Every day when I go to mass 3 passages (4 on Sundays) of Scripture are read, one from the Gospels, a psalm, and one other, and it is my practice (as many Catholics do) to read and study and pray with these passages, so that when I attend mass later in the day, these scriptures are alive for me, and should be further explained in the sermon the priest gives. Infact, these scriptures are on a 3 year cycle, so if someone attends mass every Sunday for 3 years they will hear all of the Gospels read to them, and if they attend every day, they will hear almost all of the Bible (I think it's all of the New Testament, and most of the Old). Sadly, many Catholics don't obey the Church, as you will know from Catholics you've met, or those you see in the media, but many Christians do not follow the Bible, and this doesn't mean that the Bible is not the inspired word of God. Likewise, the refusal of Catholics to listen to the Church does not mean that the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ institued, and protects from error (Matthew 16:18 ...And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it)
Next, adding to Scriptures, my friends Adam has just written an essay on this, so he's answered, he tends to go on a bit, so this is quite long, but I think it's clear?
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,
Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it
The quote from Revelation is clear: "from the words of the book of this prophecy" surely you dont believe that all the New Testament is a prophecy?
The quote from Deuteronomy is speaking specifically of the Deutronomical Covenant, that given to Moses and the Isrealites at that time, we don't follow all of the prescriptions of that covenant, I'm sure you know many examples, such as Deuteronomy chapter 12:23 "Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.", in addition to this the New Testament adds to the Old, Jesus Himself said: "a new commandment I give unto you" (John 13:34). Was He disobeying God in this?
None of these arguments you present refer to anything specific on sola scriptura, how can John be referring to the Bible as a whole, when he wrote there was no such thing as the New Testament canon? The first new testament canon was formed in 160AD by a heretic called Marcion who formed a heavily edited Luke and 10 of Pauls letters, at least 60 years after Revelation was written!
And even this isn't the one we use now, it was only after that when orthodox (representing the Church as it was at the time) canons of NT scripture began to appear. And what measure was used to decide which books were suitable for the New Testament? It was how far they followed the orthodoxy of the Church, which had been defined, not by sola scriptura but by following sacred tradition, which is completely biblical in itself "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15). "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
And who were the main characters invoved in forming these canons? The first person to declare the canon of scripture which we follow today was Athanasius in Ad367; his canon was accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Churches and formally defined by the institutional Church at the Council of Rome in 382. Before this, there was all sorts of argument over what went in to the New Testament canon, some wanted the Didache to go in, and the Corinthians wanted the first letter of Pope Clement I (which advocates apostolic tradition) to go in it.
Athanasius, also accepted the role of tradition, "Again we write, again keeping to the Apostolic Traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, "we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day," as the Psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven". (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330])
and
"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able." (ibid., 29)
So who was it who decided what stayed in the Bible and what didnt? There were so many different canons, most agreeing on the 4 gospels and maybe 5 of Pauls letters, but the final word of the rest came from the Catholic (universal) Church. It was only when it defined what was scriptural and what wasnt that people stopped arguing.
I also discussed that passage from 1 Timothy with Adam, and he was able to explain to me the context it was written in, at that time the Church was being attacked by gnosticism. The belief of gnostics is that the body is evil, and the spirit is good, and we need to use knowledge to enlarge our minds and so work our way to heaven. Clearly this is in opposition to the Gospel, and Paul writes to couter this tendancy which was spreading. Many of the gnostics, in their idea that the body is evil, believed that sex is also evil, and it follows that marriage is evil. They therefore forbid their followers to marry, and it is this that Paul is speaking against.
In another of Paul's letters, to the Corinthians, he advocates remaining unmarried: "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I." (1 Cor 7:7,8) clearly he felt it was not wrong to abstain from marriage, what was wrong was to forbid people to marry.
The Church forbids no one to marry. I could marry if I wanted to, I would not be able to be a nun, because being a nun is about that total gift of self to God that Paul also lived in his life. But I could be just as blessed, and just as close to God in the eyes of the Church, indeed, the vocation to marriage, to be a wife and a mother is so beautiful, and the Church never seeks to undervalue it, but as everyone has their proper gift of God, if it is your gift to be a priest or a monk or a nun, you will not marry.
Incidentally, the idea of a celibate priesthood is not an unchangeable teaching, the Church may at some point choose to allow married men to become priests, and Anglican priests who become Catholic can become Catholic priests even if they are married. It's a custom because of the beautful gift of celibacy, I'd love to talk more about that, but this email is already very long!
I'll have a look at those websites you mentioned, and if you would like to raise any more questions please do, I would really love to talk more about this with you. If you feel anything I have said opposes the bible please let me know. I don't think it does, but maybe I haven't explained properly.
Anyway, let's pray for each other.
God bless you,
posted by Mhari at 9:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home