Reflection on Laudato Si by Pope Francis (Part II)

To read part one of my reflections, click here.

On with Part II!

Chapter One is the more controversial chapters in the encyclical, because it is here that the Pope examines scientific diagnoses for the Earth’s problems.  Pope Francis agrees that man-made climate change and pollution are big problems.  The pope makes a profound point: the throwaway culture that leads to pollution also leads to throwing away human lives.  In such a culture, as populates the developed world today, what is useful is used and what is not useful is discarded.  It’s the classic utilitarian philosophy that grew out of the Industrial Revolution, reheated for a new generation of oppressors.  The Holy Father examines this further in the encyclical, connecting disrespect for the environment with abortion and euthanasia, as they are symptoms of the same spiritual disease. 

Many commentators have noted that Pope Francis uses incorrect scientific data to argue that man-made climate change occurs, that we are responsible for rising oceans, destroying food chains in the oceans, rising carbon dioxide levels, etc.  Such commentators, however, often miss the purpose of the Holy Father’s discussion.  He is seeking to encourage an “honest debate … among experts” (61) on the issues and their solutions.  We are responsible for some changes to the planet.  The pope is requesting that the human family step back and examine what role we’ve played.  We must admit that we’ve done something to the planet.  What cannot happen is a wistful glance at the planet and assume we can still live the way we have for far too long (see 59). 

Francis focuses on climate change in paragraphs 23-26, referring back to the topic in a few other occasions later in the encyclical.  The majority of the discussion, however, is not over whether we caused the change (Pope Francis notes that, while the majority may have come from human causes, there are some natural reasons for a changing climate, such as volcanoes and solar influences); the focus is on the effects of the change, particularly for the poor in developing countries.  When we break the planet and ignore our needy brothers, we break civil society.  Mankind has affected the planet, sometimes for the worse, and we need to recognize our responsibility towards the planet and towards each other.  What Pope Francis is pointing out is that, no matter how you view the scientific data, all must understand that we have a role in tending to this planet.  Tending is the right word, because we have the same responsibility as Adam and Eve; the Earth is our Garden of Eden.

Whenever the Holy Father addresses an ecological issue in this chapter, he includes in his discussion how the environmental changes affect human society.  For example, in his discussion about water shortages, the Pope looks not only at how the loss of fresh water affects species living in areas near water, but in particular at the affect such shortages have on people.  He notes,

Even as the quality of available water is constantly diminishing, in some places there is a growing tendency, despite its scarcity, to privatize this resource, turning it into a commodity subject to the laws of the market.  Yet access to safe drinkable water is a basic and universal human right, since it is essential to human survival and, as such, is a condition for the exercise of other human rights.  Our world has a grave social debt towards the poor who lack access to drinking water, because they are denied the right to a life consistent with their inalienable dignity. (30; emphasis in the original)

Likewise, in his discussion of biodiversity, Pope Francis looks at a theme which he will address throughout the encyclical, one which becomes the backbone of the entire work: the interconnectedness of all of Creation.  Over-fishing, for example, hurts food chains and the livelihood of local people.  We lose who we are when we lose respect for the planet. 

The Pope also has a warning concerning excessive uses of the digital world: “When media and the digital world become omnipresent, their influence can stop people from learning how to live wisely, to think deeply and to love generously.  In this context, the great sages of the past run the risk of going unheard amid the noise and distractions of an information overload.”  It is a teaching which I have tried to emphasize with my own students.  We cannot ignore those who came before us.  This is not merely a matter of Faith; it is a matter of who we are as human beings.  To isolate ourselves in a digital world formed by “tweets” and “likes” is to separate ourselves from true human interaction and, ultimately, interaction with the created world, prepared for us by God. 

Also in Chapter One is one of the passages that many (politically) liberal readers do not like, and so tend to ignore in their praise for the encyclical.  Pope Francis condemns using population control to solve environmental issues:

Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate.  At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of ‘reproductive health’ . . . .  To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. (50)

The Holy Father’s comment about pressure from countries that make economic aid “contingent on certain policies of ‘reproductive health’” should leave a sour taste in the mouths of certain politicians in the USA.  That seemingly essential liberal link between birth control and helping the poor has always befuddled me.  The starving people in Africa, Asia, and the Americas cannot be fed by condoms and abortion clinics.  Such efforts might remove the mouths to feed, but it does not feed the still hungry mouths.  It is a true international scandal. 

Tagged , , , , , ,

Reflection on Laudato Si by Pope Francis (Part I)

PART I

I have not been in the Catholic cultural commentary business long.  I was a freshman in college when Pope St. John Paul II died, and was in the midst of teaching when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI resigned.  As such, I have not witnessed much stirring and controversy concerning a papal encyclical.  Not too many non-Catholics pay much attention to letters from popes, especially when they deal with theological topics.  This is a loss for such non-Catholics, since they miss out on a wellspring of spiritual commentary and guidelines for their lives. 

Such was not the case surrounding the promulgation of Pope Francis’ encyclical, Laudato Si.  Everyone, it seemed, had a view about the encyclical, whether positive or negative.  That is what happens when such a crucial issue like the environment is discussed.  Climate change, pollution, deforestation, and over-hunting/fishing have all been controversial topics in the last few decades, both in religious and secular media.  So the pundits began punditing.  Pope Francis, to be sure, would revolutionize the Church, casting his lot with political liberals, and joining with eco-terrorists and communists to destroy western society.  At last, he would show his true colors and present for all a Church which has finally gotten with the times, so to speak.  Both sides of the debate painted such a picture. 

On June 18, the Vatican published the official text of the encyclical (a previous draft had been leaked earlier that week).  I tried my hardest to avoid reading commentary before I finished the encyclical myself.  It was hard.  Everybody was talking about the encyclical.  I was live tweeting my thoughts, so that I wouldn’t forget anything, all the while not reading what everyone else on the Internet posted about the encyclical. 

As a result, I was able to read through the entire encyclical, reflecting on it more closely than if I had read commentaries before reading it. 

What follows is the fruit of such reflection.  I will go through each of the chapters in the encyclical, looking into what is great and what is more or less so-so.  I want the readers to know up front that I loved the encyclical, and hope to reflect on it for years to come.  Originally, I planned writing a short, one part post about the encyclical.  Instead, I’ll be posting several short posts, allowing for more depth and reflection.  I hope everyone enjoys them. 

Let’s start with the Introduction.  The title of the encyclical comes from the prayer of St. Francis, where the saint praises God through nature.  It is a beautiful prayer.  If you haven’t had the time to sit and read it, check it out.  Anyway, back to Pope Francis.  The Holy Father begins by noting that our sister, “Mother Earth,” is crying to Heaven, for we have abused her.  The role of believers in respecting and fixing “our common home” is one of the main focuses of the encyclical.  In the Introduction, Pope Francis reflects on his papal predecessors, who had also written about caring for the environment in the context of the Church’s social justice teaching.  In particular, Francis points to Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI for their contributions to the discussion.  Likewise, Francis notes the contributions of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, with whom Francis shares “the hope of full ecclesial communion” (7).  The issue, Francis notes, isn’t merely that people need to develop technology to save the environment, but also that people need to change internally.  “Otherwise, we would be dealing merely with symptoms” (9).  It is in St. Francis that Pope Francis sees his model for this encyclical and his entire papacy, a model of loving God through creation, seeking the Creator in His works.  In doing so, Pope Francis hopes to encourage dialogue about what is wrong with the environment and what we, as a human family, can do to help “our common home” (Pope Francis uses that phrase eleven times, including in the full title of the encyclical, to refer to the Earth). 

Something new

HI everyone,

The school year is winding down around here, but I did manage to throw together something new for the blog: a book and magazine resource list.  It’s like the Online resource list. . . only more bookish.

Check it out, and if you have suggestions or questions about anything, please let me know!

A Quick Update

It’s been a rather busy. . . several months since the last real post.  Sorry about that.

I feel like I apologize too often, since Apologetics isn’t about apologizing.  :D

If you’re interested, I was recently published on Catholic Exchange’s website.  Go check them out.  They love some traffic and I would love my readers to help them out.  Also, you’ll probably find SOMETHING there you’d like to read (they cover everything and anything Catholic).  Its a good resource too.

Anyway, here’s the link to the reflection I wrote.  It was a reflection that I originally wrote for the boys senior retreat at the high school where I teach.  Due to time restraints, I wasn’t able to give the reflection then.  Fast forward a couple months, and I still had the reflection, still ungiven.  So I polished it up, added a couple ideas here and there, and had by beautiful and fantastic wife read over it (she’s my go-to editor).  Then I shopped around, and Catholic Exchange said they would publish it.  And so, TA-DA!

As Lent draws to a close, take time to reflect on what Christ has done in your life and how he has prepared the way for you salvation.  Now is as good a time as ever to read or re-read the stories from salvation history.  Now is a very appropriate time, to paraphrase St. Paul.

And as always, send in your questions.

God bless,

Matthew B. Rose

Tagged , ,

Grateful to be a Teacher

Matthew B. Rose:

Great quick thoughts from one of my professors at Christendom (and you get a great shot of the library too!).

Teaching is AWESOME!

Originally posted on John Cuddeback:

OUHHB_22_PP130707.psd

“It’s no easy task—indeed it’s very difficult—to realize that in every soul there is an instrument that is purified and rekindled by such subjects [liberal studies] when it has been blinded and destroyed by other ways of life, an instrument that is more important to preserve than ten thousand eyes, since only with it can the truth be seen.”
Socrates, in Plato’s Republic VII

Yesterday I finished teaching yet another semester of Philosophy. If the power of reason outweighs ten thousand eyes, then how do I measure the worth of forming that instrument, by teaching the subjects to which Socrates refers?

Never easy, often discouraging, always seeming to require more than I can give. Priceless.

To ask myself how I have deserved to be in such a position misses the point; I do not deserve it. Gratitude must be the fundamental response. What can compare with the moments I’ve shared…

View original 80 more words

Reflection: Christmas is Coming

CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!

Admit it.  Even grumpy, anti-Christian atheists deep down love Christmas.  There’s just something beautiful and joyful about this time of year.  Songs, lights, smiles, gifts, love, all swirling around the greatest event of human history (the Incarnation of our Lord) like a snow shower.  It is precisely this joy, this expectation of Christmas that fuels the season of Advent.

But Advent is a season of penance, of confessing our sins and fixing our lives.  It’s like Lent, but shorter.  Brevity, of course, does not mean less important, especially with liturgical seasons.  Just as we prepare for Easter by prayer and fasting, so also we prepare for Christmas by a similar method of prayer and fasting.

But isn’t penance and fasting, like, the opposite of joy?

NOPE!

Ever made someone feel bad?  I don’t just mean hurt the person’s feelings.  I mean really made the person so upset that he (or she) didn’t want to talk to you, as if you were nothing to each other.  Remember that feeling of separation, that gulf between you and the other?  If you truly cherish that person, you will do pretty  much anything for him/her.  You would beg him (or her) to welcome you back into his/her life, make “I’m sorry” your personal refrain, even giving up something you love for the sake of the reunion.  So it is with Advent.  We have separated ourselves from God by our sins and our selfishness.  We have done worse things to God than to any of our friends or spouses or anyone else we know.  But He comes to us.  He wants us to meet Him.  He comes through the liturgical seasons, and with great joy we await His second coming by celebrating His first arrival.  There is a joy in the expectation, and just as there is that hint of joy, that hope for celebration in reconciling with a loved one, so also there is a more complete joy in our preparation for Christmas.

Want to delve more into this joyful season of Advent and Christmas?  Scott Hahn, one of the greatest American Catholic writers and speakers, has a new book out, Joy to the World, which delves into the Christmas story and how we can draw deeper into the Christmas mystery.

It’s part scholarly analysis, part meditation on the stories and heroes of that first Christmas.  I watched a recent interview with Dr. Hahn on EWTN Live wherein he emphasizes this idea of joy in waiting for Christ, this joy in preparing for Christmas through Advent.  Give the book a whirl and, if you want, buy it (or any of his books!).  It’s on my Christmas list.

And if you have any questions about anything, send them along.

Happy Advent!

Tagged , , , ,

Question: A Doxology for the Our Father?

Debbie from Maryland asks, “Why did we add the doxology at the end of the Our Father at Mass?”

In the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass, the priest and people recite together the Our Father, the prayer that Jesus taught His disciples when they asked Him how to pray.  After all say the words, “but deliver us from evil,” the priest alone says the following: “Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day.  In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.”  The people respond with a doxology, a prayer glorifying God: “For the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory are Yours now and forever.”  Prior to the late 1960s, the Roman Missal did not include the doxology.  However, most Protestants, when reciting the Our Father, say a similar doxology.  Did the Church add the doxology to the Mass in order to appease Protestant critics?  Is there another reason for the addition?

Doxologies in general are not a new concept.  The Hebrew Scriptures have multiple doxologies, oftentimes attached to one of the great Psalms of praise to God.  For example, Psalm 41:14 praises God in a manner similar to the doxology attached to the Our Father: “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, from all eternity and forever.  Amen.  Amen.”  In 1 Chronicles 29:10-13, David sings a song in praise of God; it begins with a doxology, saying that God is “from eternity to eternity.”  The New Testament also has several doxologies.  One of the clearest examples of this is in St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, where there are several statements glorifying God, each one ending with “Amen.”  They are little prayers peppering his letter.  Likewise, the “Glory Be,” a prayer which dates to the earliest days of the Church and appears in various Christian prayers, from the Divine Office to the Rosary, is a Trinitarian doxology

Clearly, doxologies are good, longstanding traditions in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Catholic Church has no problem with doxologies accompanying her prayers. The question is: why do we have a doxology at the end of the Our Father during Mass, but when we say the Our Father at other times, we do not have a doxology?  What precedence is there for the doxology accompanying the Our Father?

The controversy over the Our Father’s doxology begins in the Gospels, or at least in translations of the Gospels.  Most translations of Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4, where Our Lord teaches the Our Father to His disciples, do not include the doxology.  The two earliest editions of Matthew’s Gospel do not include the doxology (the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), while the third earliest (the Codex Washingtonensis, held at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.) does have the line.  The first two editions date to the 4th century, but the third dates to the late 4th/early 5th century.  That’s not much of a difference when dealing with ancient manuscripts.

Speaking of ancient manuscripts, the earliest reference to a doxology accompanying the Our Father is found in one of the Church’s earliest writing’s, the Didache.  This is important, because the Didache was probably written in the late first/early second century.  This means that early in the Church’s history a doxology went with the Our Father.  This practice continued in the eastern part of the Church.  Today, following this ancient tradition, the Eastern Churches (whether in union or not with the Roman Catholic Church) include a doxology at the end of the Our Father in the Divine Liturgy: “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages.  Amen.”

An added doxology never really picked up in the West until the Protestant Reformation, and even then, it didn’t happen right away.  It was during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in England that the doxology appears in Protestant editions of the Bible and in the Book of Common Prayer.  It seems that the addition was made by Protestants to distance themselves from the Church.

As Fr. Zuhlsdorf notes, “Catholics didn’t use the ancient Catholic prayer and Protestants did, in order to be Protestant, which is ironic.”

So we can see that, in both the Orthodox Church and in Protestant congregations, particularly in the English-speaking world, there is a tradition of using a doxology with the Our Father.

Fast forward to the 1960s.  While working on what would eventually become the Novus Ordo, or the Ordinary Form, of the Roman Missal, the liturgists included the doxology in the Mass after the Our Father.  These liturgists didn’t explain why they made the change.  Perhaps, given the Church’s liturgical history, they sought to be ecumenical, trying to reach out to Protestants and the Orthodox by including in the Mass a prayer praising God which would make them feel more at home.

Additionally, there was a push by many liturgists to bring back into the liturgy more practices and prayers from the ancient Church.  One can see this in the inclusion of the second Eucharistic Prayer, which was composed by St. Hippolytus in the early 3rd century.  As the Our Father doxology is just such a prayer, it would make sense that it was part of a larger push to reawaken in Catholics a sense of their tradition, a sense of the Catholic past.  At a time when many in society sought to break with their cultural ancestors, perhaps the liturgists sought to bring back these ancient prayers to save the Church from a similar wreckage, to reinvigorate the Church and help the faithful recognize their true identity as Christians.

In the end, however, without any notes left by the liturgists themselves, our guesses must suffice.  The doxology does not seem to have been added in any malice or heretical mindset.  On the one hand, if the prayer was added as a touchstone for Protestant and Orthodox converts, the addition is a genuine extension of Catholic welcome to our separated brethren.  On the other hand, if it is a sort of antiquarianism, perhaps it was done with the hope of using the old to transform the new, to use the voice of Tradition to transform the modern man’s heart.

One final note about the Our Father’s doxology.  In the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s meditation on the Our Father, which forms the bulk of the section on Prayer, there is a portion devoted to the doxology.  The Catechism reads, “The final doxology . . . takes up again, by inclusion, the first three petitions to our Father: the glorification of his name, the coming of his reign, and the power of his saving will.  But these prayers are now proclaimed as adoration and thanksgiving, as in the liturgy of heaven.  The ruler of this world has mendaciously attributed to himself the three titles of kingship, power, and glory.  Christ, the Lord, restores them to his Father and our Father, until he hands over the kingdom to him when the mystery of salvation will be brought to its completion and God will be all in all” (CCC 2855).

I hope this helps!

For further reading:

Saunders, William.  “Who Added the Doxology?”  Available at http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DOXOLOG.HTM.  Accessed 10/27/14.

“Is the Doxology of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13 a Late Addition?”  Available at http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/is-the-doxology-to-the-lords-prayer-in-matthew-613-a-late-addition.  Accessed 10/27/14.

Zuhlsdorf, John.  “QUAERITUR: Why is the Protestant “For the kingdom, the power, the glory…” in Our Catholic Mass?”  Available at http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/02/quaeritur-why-is-the-protestant-for-the-kingdom-the-power-the-glory-in-our-catholic-mass.  Accessed 10/27/14.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Reblog: What’s Preventing You From Being Catholic?

Matthew B. Rose:

This is a question I offer to readers of Quidquid. If you aren’t Catholic, why not? If you converted to Catholicism, what kept you away.

I feel that the writer of Deus Nobiscum and I have the same hope: to help spread the truth of the Faith, instead of foggy opinions and views.

As Ven. Fulton Sheen said, “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

So I extend Deus Nobiscum’s invitation to readers here as well. Check out his blog, comment on the post, and while your at it, send a question you may have this way.

Originally posted on God With Us:

This an opportunity for anyone and everyone to express what ONE thing is preventing them from coming into Communion with the Catholic Church.

Please keep your comment short and respectful and I will respond with a post just for you!

Catholics, please share this post with as many others as possible!

View original

Tagged , , , , ,

Question: Robbing Peter to Pay Paul?

We are back!  Well, we’re back with a QUESTION!!!!!

Marcy asks: “Why was there a split between what I think of as the doctrine Peter and the doctrine of Paul?  Was it a matter of ‘money talks’?  And, of course, why no married priests if Peter was married?”
I don’t know if Marcy is getting at the famous phrase “Robbing Peter to pay Paul.”  If she is, the best my research can show indicates that the phrase has nothing to do with these two Apostles.  Most of the sources I’ve found in my research say that the “Peter” in question is actually Westminster Abbey (aka, the Abby of St. Peter’s), while the “Paul” is St. Paul’s Cathedral.  Apparently, after King Henry VIII took over the monastery lands, including Westminster Abbey, in the sixteenth century, he used money from the monastery to pay for repairs to St. Paul’s Cathedral in London.  Thus Peter was robbed to pay for Paul.  The phrase had nothing to do with the doctrines of the two disciples.  There is evidence for earlier references to the phrase, but they always have to do with moving money around and nothing to do with the actual Apostles.

 

However, there is a deeper topic of discussion here.  Marcy mentions the debate over the doctrine of St. Peter vs. the doctrine of St. Paul.  Many Protestant theologians embrace the writings of St. Paul as an antidote to the theology of the Catholic Church, and since the first pope is St. Peter, these theologians set up St. Paul as an antidote to St. Peter.  It is a hot topic in many interdenominational debates.

 

In order to approach this hotly debated topic, we must first get to know the two great men in question, Sts. Peter and Paul.  Both men helped form the Church.  If there was a divide between them, if one’s beliefs were suppressed for the other, then perhaps the entirety of Christian history is a lie.  That would be bad.

 

But first, a little about St. Peter.

 

He was a fisherman named Simon, a strong man, tough and weathered by years on the Sea of Galilee.  He was like all of us, a sinner.  He admits as much to Jesus when Our Lord helps him catch a miraculous net of fish.  He was outspoken, saying his mind, a sometimes-flaw which Christ used to spread His Word.  Christ did not choose him randomly to be the “Rock” upon which He would build His Church.  Matthew 16 is clear on this; it was a defining moment in Church history, and as such merited the change of the Apostle’s name from Simon to Peter.  Yet this same man who declared Christ was the “Son of God” later tried to forbid Christ from going to Jerusalem.  Christ’s rebuke of Peter serves to remind us that though Christ works with us for our salvation and the salvation of others, He is in charge, we are not.  Jesus used this man of conviction, in spite of his brash nature, to transform the world.  It was Peter who, after Christ’s Ascension into Heaven, stood up and took charge of the Apostles; Christ had, after all, left Peter the task (see Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19).  No one challenged him.  When the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles at Pentecost, it was Peter who addressed the crowd, and 3000 joined the Church that day.  Peter was the leader, and the Church followed his lead.

 

Paul was similar to Peter in that he too had great faith and spoke his mind.  Unlike Peter, Paul (whose original name was Saul) was well educated and, notably, a Roman citizen.  He studied under Gamaliel, one of the most notable rabbis of first century Jerusalem.  On fire for God, Saul joined the Persecution of Christians in Jerusalem.  He was on his way to Damascus to arrest Christians there when a blinding light knocked him to the ground, and Christ’s voice announced that Saul was persecuting Him, not merely His followers.  This conversion transformed Saul.  After retreating to the Arabian desert for three years, Saul met with the Apostles in Jerusalem.  During this time, Paul drew into Christ, and soon he referred to himself not by his given name (Saul) but by a Greek version of that name (Paul).

 

These two men are, as Fr. Robert Barron says in his Catholicism series, “the indispensable men” of the early Church.  The Church would not exist as it does today if not for these men.  They together formed a huge bulk of the New Testament.  St. Peter wrote two letters contained in the Canon of Scripture, as well as working with St. Mark on his Gospel account.  St. Paul is responsible for the bulk of the New Testament, penning the majority of the New Testament Letters, as well as working with St. Luke to write the third Gospel and Acts of the Apostles.  These two men, Peter and Paul, presented to the Church an authentic understanding of Christ’s mission and teaching.  St. Peter helped spread the word to Jewish Christians; St. Paul’s preaching earned him the title “Apostle to the Gentiles.”

 

What, then, of this split between their teachings?  Did they teach different doctrines?  If so, who was right?

 

The controversy stems from a rather strong passage in St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (2:11ff).  Here Paul describes how he went to preach to the Gentiles, as Peter, James, and John preached to the Jews.  However, while in Antioch, Paul stood up to Peter “to his face” because Peter ate with the Jewish Christians but not the Gentile ones.  Protestant scholars see in Paul’s statement proof that he and St. Peter were at odds with each other, and that Paul had enough authority to counter the authority of Peter.  Peter, it seems, taught one thing while Paul taught something else, and given the chance, Paul would reject Peter’s authority.  Does this mean Peter was not really in charge of the Christian Church following Christ’s Ascension?

 

The answer lies in the Acts of the Apostles (side note: remember to read the Bible, especially St. Paul’s letters, as one book; St. Paul’s writings fit into the historical narrative relayed in Acts of the Apostles, and oftentimes the historical writings are helpful for making sense of Paul’s writings).  In Acts 10 there is the story of a Roman centurion named Cornelius.  Cornelius was one of the “God-fearers,” pagans who believed in the one true God, but didn’t want to go through the rather painful process of becoming Jewish.  Cornelius received a vision telling him to send for Peter.  He does this immediately.  The next day, as the messengers from Cornelius approach the place where Peter stayed, Peter himself received a vision of a sheet with all sorts of animals, clean and unclean.  Peter, though very hungry (it was lunch time), refused to touch the animals, saying “No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean” (Acts 10:14).  A voice responded, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.”  This happened three times, and at the end of it, Peter was confused.  Then he met the messengers from Cornelius, and things started to make sense.  He went with the men to Cornelius, and long story short, Cornelius and his household were baptized, even though they were not Jewish.  They became the first Gentile Christians, baptized by the hand of Peter himself.

 

Now as time progressed, many Gentiles became Christians.  Some of the Jewish Christians (converts from Judaism) were upset that the Gentile Christians didn’t have to follow the law of Moses before becoming Christians.  Other Christians said the law of Moses no longer had the authority it did before Christ.  Christ fulfilled the law, the logic went, and so we don’t need the explicit law any more.  Paul supported this latter view.  The final decision on this question finally came at the Council of Jerusalem (the first council of its kind in Church history).  There the Apostles decided that Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians were equal, and that Gentile Christians did not have to follow the Mosaic law (the whole story is in Acts 15).  Peter not only supported this decision, it was his speech in the council that rallied the Apostles to agree.  So there in Acts 15 Peter and Paul agree on this issue of Gentile vs. Jewish Christians.  They are the same, and one can interact with both groups.  All are one in Christ.

 

What, then, of Galatians 2:11 ff?  Look at what Paul says he said to Peter.  First, the context.

 

Chapter two of Paul’s letter begins by Paul saying how he went to Jerusalem to defend his ministry to the Gentiles.  He gives a beautiful, reflective summary of the council in Jerusalem:

 

“When they [the other Apostles] saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do” (Gal 2:7-10).

 

Paul left the council with the blessing and prayers and support of Peter, James, and John (Peter = Cephas).  However, the very next verse is the startling one: “But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”  Does Paul know better than Peter?  Does a normal bishop dare stand up to the pope?  The rest of the passage holds the answer.

 

For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.  And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity.  But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”  We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.  But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we ourselves were found to be sinners, is Christ then an agent of sin?  Certainly not!  But if I build up again those things which I tore down, then I prove myself a transgressor.  For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God.  I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.  I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose.  (Gal. 2:12-21)

 

This isn’t an example of a bishop (Paul) splitting off from the pope’s (Peter’s) teaching.  This is a bishop reminding the pope of his own teaching.  Paul does this reprimand not to break off from Peter or to try to take control of the Church, but to unite the Church, rallying the faithful around the teaching of the Apostles.

 

And before anyone gets too excited, no, this episode does nothing to diminish papal infallibility.  Peter was causing scandal through his actions (a discipline-related matter), but he did not break from the set doctrine of the Church.

 

So there was no conflict between Peter and Paul.  In fact, one finds in one of Peter’s letters an endorsement of Paul’s letters: “Count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters.  There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.  You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability” (2 Peter 3: 15-17).  Likewise, in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, Paul lists Peter first among those who saw the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:5).  Paul also discourages the Corinthians from distinguishing between his teaching and that of Peter.  As Paul states, “let no one boast of men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours; and you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor. 3: 21-23).

 

Peter and Paul together transformed the Church.  It is no wonder that the Church celebrates both men together on June 29 (which, on a completely unrelated side note, is also my wedding anniversary).

 

 

Above: An Icon of Peter and Paul.  See, they’re bros!

One final note about Peter.  Marcy asked why there are no married priests if Peter was married.  We know that Peter was married because Jesus healed his mother-in-law (see Matthew 8, Mark 1, and Luke 4 for the story).  Why, then, can’t priests be married?

 

The celibate priesthood is a discipline of the Church.  Disciplines can change.  In the early church, some priests were married (as we mentioned in the post about the question of women priests in Church history), and this discipline is still practice in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic Churches.  Likewise, in the Roman Catholic Church, certain clergymen who convert from certain Protestant groups (like former Anglicans) may, under certain circumstances, be ordained even though they are married.  There are also permanent deacons in the Roman Rite who are married.  However, there is a major condition for all of these men, whether they are Eastern or converts or permanent deacons: married clergy must be married prior to receiving the sacrament of Holy Orders, that is, before ordination.  Married men can become priests.  Priests can’t become married men.

 

There is a lot more which could be said about this.  I have a special section in the For More Information below concerning married priests.

 

For More Information

 

On “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul”

 

http://idiomation.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/rob-peter-to-pay-paul/

 

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/rob-peter-to-pay-paul.html

 

 

On Married Priests

 

Thurston, Herbert.  “Celibacy of the Clergy.”  The Catholic Encyclopedia.  Vol. 3.  New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908.  Accessed June 8, 2014.  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

 

Catholic Answers.  “Celibacy and the Priesthood.” Accessed June 8, 2014.  http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood

 

“Clerical Celibacy (Catholic Church).”  Accessed June 8, 2014.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_(Catholic_Church)

 

Cattaneo, Arturo.  Married Priests?: 30 Crucial Questions about Celibacy.  San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2012.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

EWTN To Air ‘The Crusades:’ A Timely & Important Mini-Series!

Matthew B. Rose:

This looks like a series of interest for Quidquid readers. Good history, from what it looks like.

Originally posted on Inside EWTN:

Crusades Muslim warriorsWhen EWTN decided to produce a new docu-drama on the Crusades two years ago, most Americans had never heard of ISIS; no journalists had been beheaded in Iraq; and no Christian women and girls had been abducted or enslaved. Yet the Lord, with His perfect timing, knew that a mini-series on “The Crusades” needed to be ready to air in October – and so it is. (The mini-series airs 10 p.m. ET from Wednesday, Oct. 8 through Saturday, Oct. 11.)

You’ve heard the tales, now learn the truth concerning the church’s role in the Crusades and its efforts to restore the Holy Land to a place of safety for Catholic pilgrims. This powerful four-part series, shot on location in seven countries, gives viewers a well-rounded understanding of an important historical event, which has repercussions in our own time.

Christian Crusaders pray before battle in this scene from EWTN's new four-part docu-drama, "The Crusades." Airs 10 p.m. ET from Wednesday, Oct. 8 through Saturday, Oct. 11 on EWTN, www.ewtn.com/channelfinder. Christian Crusaders pray before battle in this scene from EWTN’s new four-part…

View original 487 more words

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 427 other followers

%d bloggers like this: