I’m going to comment on some recent statements by Vallicella:
Parents are essential: without them we could not have come into fleshly existence. But offspring are wholly inessential: one can exist quite well without them.
The upside to being an anthropological dangler is that it enables one’s participation in a higher life by freeing one from mundane burdens and distractions...Someone who would be "a spectator of all time and existence" ought to think twice about binding himself too closely to the earth and its distractions.
Another advantage to being childless is that one is free from being an object of those attitudes of propinquity -- to give them a name -- such as embarrassment and disappointment, disgust and dismissal that ungrateful children sometimes train upon their parents, not always unjustly.
The childless can look forward to a time when all of their blood-relatives have died off. Then they will finally be free of the judgments of those to whom one is tied by consanguinity but not by spiritual affinity.
Second, religion is about transcendence and transcending, about reaching beyond the human-all-too-human, and beyond all the images of the picture-loving imagination. Religion is not about the positing of a hinterworld that duplicates this world with the negative removed. It is not about crude, materialistic, wish-fulfillment. This is why we find the Islamic 72 virgins conception of paradise so paltry and ridiculous: it is a blatant pandering to the basest elements in our nature, a pandering at once both superstitious and idolatrous. Religion aims at a spiritualization of the human being which cannot be imagined and is just barely conceivable. It is about theosis (deification) as is maintained in Orthodox Christianity. And because the ultimate goal for humans is not imaginable and barely conceivable, it is repeatedly pictured in crude and absurd materialistic ways -- which only fuels the fires of atheism. Actually, one ought to be an atheist in respect of the anthropomorphic God-conceptions.
Before proceeding, I’d like to consider some possible influences on Vallicella’s conception of religion. One possible influence is Buddhism, which fosters detachment.
In addition, Vallicella was raised in Italian Catholicism. Compare his statements with the Catholic dogma of the Beatific Vision:
In heaven the just will see God by direct intuition, clearly and distinctly. Here on earth we have no immediate perception of God; we see Him but indirectly in the mirror of creation. We get our first and direct knowledge from creatures, and then, by reasoning from these, we ascend to a knowledge of God according to the imperfect likeness which creatures bear to their Creator. But in doing so we proceed to a large extent by way of negation, i.e., by removing from the Divine Being the imperfections proper to creatures. In heaven, however, no creature will stand between God and the soul. He himself will be the immediate object of its vision. Scripture and theology tell us that the blessed see God face to face. And because this vision is immediate and direct, it is also exceedingly clear and distinct...The blessed see God, not merely according to the measure of His likeness imperfectly reflected in creation, but they see Him as He is, after the manner of His own Being. That the blessed see God is a dogma of faith, expressly defined by Benedict XII (1336):
We define that the souls of all the saints in heaven have seen and do see the Divine Essence by direct intuition and face to face [visione intuitivâ et etiam faciali], in such wise that nothing created intervenes as an object of vision, but the Divine Essence presents itself to their immediate gaze, unveiled, clearly and openly; moreover, that in this vision they enjoy the Divine Essence, and that, in virtue of this vision and this enjoyment, they are truly blessed and possess eternal life and eternal rest" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. 10, n. 530--old edition, n, 456; cf. nn. 693, 1084, 1458 old, nn. 588, 868).
This is part of a religiously and philosophically diverse tradition according to which salvation involves an escape from the mundane, the ordinary, the earthly, the physical, the sensory. According to this tradition, our embodied experience is a wall rather than a window. Our finitude, physicality, creatureliness, is a prison.
From a biblical standpoint, this conception of religion is misguided and ultimately impious.
For instance, the Bible contains visions of heaven, visions of the afterlife. Yet the imagery is drawn from concrete human experience. It may combine natural objects in fantastic ways, but the raw materials are down-to-earth.
My ordinary life-experience is a way I experience God. For everything I experience ultimately comes from God. God planned every experience I have. I experience God in and through the life he gave me. God is the storyteller, and I am the story. One of many stories. Stories within stories. Each life is a story that God has wrought. Each story is a journey.
That’s how God is present in our lives. That’s how God comes to us. Not in some discrete vision or apparition. But in the very fabric of life. In the journey. God isn’t just a part of our lives. Rather, everything that happens to us is from the hand of God. Every bend in the river.
That doesn’t mean an individual consciously experiences God in his mundane experience. And raw experience isn’t self-interpreting.
However, Christians also experience the Bible. God has made the Bible a part of our personal experience. The Bible comes to us within human experience, yet it tells us what lies behind human experience. You discover a book within the world that tells you about the world from a viewpoint beyond the world.
A story about the story. The backstory. The story of how the story began, and how it comes out. A roadmap for the journey ahead.
Among other things, the Bible is a lens through which we can discern God’s ordinary providence in our lives. The minutiae of our tiny lives acquires hidden significance as we realize that it’s all meaningful, all purposeful.
Something doesn’t have to be spectacular to be good. The extraordinary isn’t inherently better than the ordinary. What was the vocation of Adam and Eve? To be husband and wife. To be parents. To be gardeners.
You can garden to the glory of God. You don’t need to be a mystic to experience God. God comes to us in little things. Simple things. We need to learn the art of finding more in less. I’m reminded of the line from a hymn: “Little is much when God is in it.”
In a fallen world, sin often robs us of the ability to simply enjoy life. To calmly take pleasure in all that God has given us. Anxiety, resentment, regret, frustration, disappointment, sickness, and mortality haunt us or harass us. But in the new Eden, in the new Jerusalem, that will all melt away.
At the same time, the experience of traveling through a fallen world to arrive at the new Eden, the new Jerusalem, enriches our appreciation. Take a soldier whose land is invaded by the enemy. He moves his family out of the war zone. He hides them in a place of safekeeping. But duty calls. He must return to the war zone.
He misses his family. He remembers their faces when he rode away. Yet hope sustains him during the war. He knows they are safe. He knows he has that to come back to. They are waiting for him. And he is waiting for them.
During the war, he may come within an inch of his life. A near miss. The realization that he almost died makes him all the more thankful to be alive. Awestruck by the close call.
After the war he returns home. The reunion is more precious than if they were never separated.
Or take a hiker who is lost in the woods. Maybe he always took life for granted. Now he’s afraid. Hungry. Thirsty. Chilling. Alone. Very alone.
He begins to lose hope. He looks back over his life. All the things he left undone. All the lost opportunities.
If he’s found, he values his life in a way he didn’t before he was lost. In a sense, he goes back to his old life. He’s still the same person. But he lives his old life with new eyes.
Salvation is not about transcending our humanity, but learning to be human. Learning to be what God made us to be. Humanity redeemed. God is in the details. In the story of our little lives. A story we better understand as we see the journey unfold.
A wonderful post. Thanks, Steve! :-)
ReplyDeleteThe second half of this post is wonderful, but the first half I must take issue with. Especially this:
ReplyDelete***This is part of a religiously and philosophically diverse tradition according to which salvation involves an escape from the mundane, the ordinary, the earthly, the physical, the sensory. According to this tradition, our embodied experience is a wall rather than a window. Our finitude, physicality, creatureliness, is a prison." From a biblical standpoint, this conception of religion is misguided and ultimately impious.
For instance, the Bible contains visions of heaven, visions of the afterlife. Yet the imagery is drawn from concrete human experience. It may combine natural objects in fantastic ways, but the raw materials are down-to-earth.***
Charging Catholics with hatred of and distaste for the material world is awfully peculiar.
After all, we're the ones who believe that God works through water and oil, bread and wine, icons and statues, the hands and clothes and baubles of men.
I do not deny that some Catholics of the past have harbored antipathy for earthly existence. But that was characteristic of the ages in which they lived: ages wherein a paper cut might easily lead to infection, fever, and death; ages wherein plague and pillage were rampant; ages wherein most people suffered through short, brutish, and nasty lives and viewed death as a reprieve.
Given the conditions of the pre-modern world, is it any wonder that some of the ancient and medieval saints longed for the security and peace of heaven? This theme is not uncommon among the earlier Protestant divines, either.
Neither is the Bible totally unsympathetic to this tendency. Especially the wisdom literature of the Old Testament, there is a recognition of the pain, vanity, limitation, and lacking of earthy, material existence.
The basis of the dogma of the beatific vision is Biblical. At many points figures in Scripture yearn to see the "face" of God. The idea of "seeing" runs throughout the Book, from Exodus to Revelation.
I always loved the end of Psalm 17:
"As for me, I will behold Thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with Thy likeness" (v 15).
And, of course, we have the poignant longing of Paul expressed with typical poetic flair in I Corinthians: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face" (13:12).
Philip Jude said:
ReplyDelete"Charging Catholics with hatred of and distaste for the material world is awfully peculiar. we're the ones who believe that God works through water and oil, bread and wine, icons and statues, the hands and clothes and baubles of men."
1. I don't see how Steve Hays has "charg[ed] Catholics with hatred of and distate for the material world." Much more could be said but the simple fact of the matter is Steve was addressing Bill Vallicella and the influences in Vallicella's life in order to respond to Vallicella. Steve wasn't necessarily addressing all Catholics.
2. I don't see how it's in the realm of down-to-earth, concrete human experience in the material world to think the bread is the literal flesh of Jesus and the wine is the literal blood of Jesus. That would seem to be anything but down-to-earth, concrete human experience in the material world. In my experience as well as the experience of my Catholic friends and family, we have yet to observe the literal body and literal blood of Jesus in the mass. Of course, my Catholic friends and family nevertheless believe it is the literal body and blood but they don't do so based on their down-to-earth, concrete human experience in the material world.
PHILIP JUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Charging Catholics with hatred of and distaste for the material world is awfully peculiar. After all, we're the ones who believe that God works through water and oil, bread and wine, icons and statues, the hands and clothes and baubles of men."
Like Hinduism, Catholicism is highly syncretistic. As a result, Catholic piety is schizophrenic. At one extreme is the ostentatious worldliness of St. Peter's basilica, the Asamkirche, and the Erzbischöfliches Palais in Vienna (to take a few examples). At the other extreme are monastic austerities.
"I do not deny that some Catholics of the past have harbored antipathy for earthly existence. But that was characteristic of the ages in which they lived."
No, I used the example of the Beatific Vision.
"Especially the wisdom literature of the Old Testament, there is a recognition of the pain, vanity, limitation, and lacking of earthy, material existence."
You fail to distinguish between earthly existence and fallen existence. My post drew that distinction. Another example of your sloppiness.
"The basis of the dogma of the beatific vision is Biblical. At many points figures in Scripture yearn to see the 'face' of God."
That's not how Scripture defines seeing God face-to-face. Case in point: Jn 1:14,18.
You have a habit of sloppy prooftexting.
***At one extreme is the ostentatious worldliness of St. Peter's basilica, the Asamkirche, and the Erzbischöfliches Palais in Vienna (to take a few examples). At the other extreme are monastic austerities.***
ReplyDeleteMonastics live austere lives, but that does not necessarily mean rejection of or hatred for the material world.
Indeed, it was Saint Francis, a fierce ascetic, who composed "The Canticle of the Sun," which praises the beauty and goodness of creation.
Catholicism is about balance. Just as there are fasts and feasts, so there coexists a grateful and wondrous appreciation of creation alongside a poignant straining against the flesh (that is, against creatureliness) and upwards toward the "unapproachable light" in which God dwells.
I believe it was St. Therese who declared, upon being discovered devouring fowl late at night by a few novices: "When I fast, I fast. When I eat fowl, I eat fowl."
***No, I used the example of the Beatific Vision.***
I fully realize that there is a certain tendency within the Catholic tradition to extol the spiritual over and against the physical (and more especially heaven over and against the resurrection), and if you are reacting against this, I say well and good. Of course, this is not restricted to Catholicism, nor does it infect the entire Catholic tradition.
Sure, the Beatific Vision can be described in lofty and sophisticated terms, but the language of the Bible is not always the language of theology. This is as true with Protestant theology as with Catholic theology.
Also from New Advent comes this definition, which is simple enough: "[The Beatific Vision is] the immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven. It is called "vision" to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life. And since in beholding God face to face the created intelligence finds perfect happiness, the vision is termed "beatific."
What is so objectionable about this? Is this radically different from the understanding of heaven embraced by Reformed?
***You fail to distinguish between earthly existence and fallen existence. My post drew that distinction. Another example of your sloppiness.***
Fair enough. Thanks for keeping me sharp! ;-)
***That's not how Scripture defines seeing God face-to-face. Case in point: Jn 1:14,18.***
Does Scripture really "define" seeing God face-to-face?
All I'm saying is that the desire to "see" God -- and the promise that this desire will one day be fulfilled (however mysteriously) -- is a theme that runs through Scripture.
***You have a habit of sloppy prooftexting.***
Augustine cited that same verse in similar circumstances:
"Wherefore the apostle uses the words cited a little ago, "Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face." This vision is reserved as the reward of our faith; and of it the Apostle John also says, "When He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." By "the face" of God we are to understand His manifestation, and not a part of the body similar to that which in our bodies we call by that name
...
Then the apostle's expression, "face to face," does not oblige us to believe that we shall see God by the bodily face in which are the eyes of the body, for we shall see Him without intermission in spirit. And if the apostle had not referred to the face of the inner man, he would not have said, "But we, with unveiled face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord" (City of God 22:29).
Thanks for discussing this with me. I know your time is valuable. God bless, Steve!
"Little is Much When God Is In It" sung by Larry Ford http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsXFigFulJs
ReplyDeleteRockingwithhawking,
ReplyDeleteSure, many Catholic beliefs are not down-to-earth. Neither are many Reformed beliefs! Go ask any non-Christian how down-to-earth the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection are! I'm sure you know from experience, they're typically pretty hard sells! Just recall what the skeptics cried on Pentecost: "Buncha drunken loonies!" ;-)
What I said (at least, what I meant to say!) was that we Catholics do not despise the material world.
On the contrary, we love and embrace and celebrate creation. We do not consider material a barrier to God, but a means of access. That's the entire basis of sacramentalism. Creation is good. So said the Lord. Indeed, it is so good that He deigns to work through it, using water and wine and bread and oil to achieve the salvation of His people.
Thanks for responding to me! God bless.
Catholicism is about balance
ReplyDeleteThis is not true. Roman Catholicism has one condition: Rome is in charge. Everything else is a wax nose that's up for negotiation. You can live at St Peter's or in the desert of Egypt. The Church of Rome is a big enough tent that all roads indeed can lead to Rome.
The problem with all of those "wax-nosable" items is that the vast majority of them are not biblical.
So, while Roman Catholicism uses the name "Jesus Christ", he is really a small and insignificant portion of what Roman Catholicism is. Some folks may indeed look to Jesus Christ from within Catholicism. But you can look almost anywhere else, be almost anything else, and still call yourself a "Catholic".
PHILIP JUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Monastics live austere lives, but that does not necessarily mean rejection of or hatred for the material world."
It's an other-worldly piety.
"Indeed, it was Saint Francis, a fierce ascetic, who composed 'The Canticle of the Sun,' which praises the beauty and goodness of creation."
He was a sweet well-meaning simpleton.
"Catholicism is about balance."
Catholicism is about compromise. Catholicism is about syncretism. Catholicism is about playing both sides of the fence.
"...poignant straining against the flesh (that is, against creatureliness) and upwards toward the 'unapproachable light' in which God dwells."
That illustrates the diabolical character of Catholic spirituality. It's impious to strain against our creatureliness. We experience God through our creatureliness. That's how God made us. God made us to experience him according to our nature, and not according to his nature.
We don't approach God–God approaches us. We don't find God, God finds us.
"I fully realize that there is a certain tendency within the Catholic tradition to extol the spiritual over and against the physical (and more especially heaven over and against the resurrection), and if you are reacting against this, I say well and good. Of course, this is not restricted to Catholicism."
Protestant theology is correctible whereas Catholicism dogmatizes its errors.
"Also from New Advent comes this definition, which is simple enough."
Simply wrong. It defines the end of man as an unmediated intuition of God's essence.
But God actually reveals his essence mediately, through nature, history, and especially the Incarnation.
"What is so objectionable about this? Is this radically different from the understanding of heaven embraced by Reformed?"
"Heaven" is not the final state, but the intermediate state. Yet the Beatific Vision (in Catholicism) is the supernatural goal or telos of man. So that's fundamentally defective. It falls short.
"All I'm saying is that the desire to 'see' God -- and the promise that this desire will one day be fulfilled (however mysteriously) -- is a theme that runs through Scripture."
The Incarnation represents the fulfillment. Jn 1:14,18 stand in contrast to the OT theophanies (e.g. Exod 33:20). To see Christ is to see God (cf. Jn 14:9) inasmuch as Christ is God Incarnate.
Yet that's mediated by the Incarnation.
"Augustine cited that same verse in similar circumstances."
i) That tells us what Augustine thought, not what St. John thought. That's not exegeting the passage.
ii) 1 Jn 3:2 refers to the Parousia. So the object of sight is Christ, is God Incarnate. Not an unmediated intuition of God's essence.
John,
ReplyDelete***The Church of Rome is a big enough tent that all roads indeed can lead to Rome.***
The body has many and diverse parts, each special and necessary in its own right.
***So, while Roman Catholicism uses the name "Jesus Christ", he is really a small and insignificant portion of what Roman Catholicism is.
...
But you can look almost anywhere else, be almost anything else, and still call yourself a "Catholic".***
A man could call himself a dog -- even run about and lick himself like a dog -- yet he would make a poor specimen if one wanted to accurately understand canine nature. Feel me?
It seems there are, in the main, two types of Catholics: (1) those who are Catholic by culture and agnostic by faith and (2) those who earnestly believe in Christ, pray the Nicene Creed with genuine conviction, and lead lives of piety, humility, faith, hope, and love.
Given human nature, I suspect this division exists within Protestant and Orthodox churches, too, although my experience with them is obviously not great. I would not judge all Reformed by the actions and beliefs of a skeptical liberal modernist who goes to church because it's the "proper" or "traditional" thing to do.
A man's catholicity can be determined by his conformity to tradition, current magisterial teaching, and Holy Scripture.
Obviously, you find these to be muddled and even contradictory means of evaluation, and you're not all wrong: sometimes they are difficult to coordinate. Thus the necessity of the Holy Spirit.
However, the criteria are clear enough that the parties "within" the Church know who's who: the modernists can distinguish themselves from the traditionalists and vice versa. (Frankly, I hardly consider someone like Hans Kung or Nancy Pelosi "within" the Church, but until they are formally excommunicated I'll be charitable.)
Additionally, the modernists fully realize they are dissenting from tradition, magisterial teaching, and Scripture. They simply don't care.
It's not like heterodox Catholics say, "Oh look, Humanae Vitae actually means this, this, and that!" No, they merely declare, "I'll do what I please, papal sanction be damned!"
In these cases (see: Kung, Pelosi), I haven't the faintest idea why the sword of excommunication isn't swiftly wielded . . . Indeed, such lack of discipline is one of my issues with the bishops, for it leads inevitably to the charges you put forth in your previous post.
Anyway, I don't want to hijack this post. Steve said some really beautiful stuff in this, and I'm sure he doesn't want it sullied by scurrilous and damnable Romish propaganda. ;-)
Thanks for the response, though, Steve. God bless!
"1 Jn 3:2 refers to the Parousia. So the object of sight is Christ, is God Incarnate. Not an unmediated intuition of God's essence."
ReplyDeleteIs I Corithinians 13:12 about the parousia?
PHILIP JUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Is I Corithinians 13:12 about the parousia?"
i) Irrelevant, for that verse doesn't say we will enjoy an unmediated intuition of God's essence.
ii) Moreover, that verse alludes to Num 12:8 & Deut 34:10. However, what Moses saw was not God in himself, but the presence of God mediated by a theanthropic angelophany.
Haha! I honestly had to laugh at "theanthropic angelophany." Say that ten times fast! Nice bit of levity in an otherwise serious conversation!
ReplyDelete***It's an other-worldly piety***
I don't know about "other-worldly." The religious with whom I am familiar are among the funnest, finest, most sensible and interesting folks I know. They are kindly and simple, devoted to helping the poor, feeding the sick, caring for elderly and imprisoned, reading Scripture, and worshipping God through the liturgy.
Probably there're some wild-eyed monks with delusions of mystical grandeur -- but who cares? There're rotten apples in every bushel.
Some are called to live a life of poverty and chastity and obedience. Not most, but some.
“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me" (Matthew 19:21).
Christ continues to call men and women to live exclusively for Him, spending their lives in prayer and charity, for "an unmarried person is concerned about the Lord's affairs; how to please the Lord" (I Corinthians 7:32).
***He was a sweet well-meaning simpleton. ***
Oh come now, don't be fooled by these modern white-washes that make him out as a hippie. He trekked all the way to the Middle East, strode boldly into a camp of Muslim warriors, and before the sultan challenged an imam to trial by fire to prove the power of Christ. The fellow truly was a "fool for Christ."
***That illustrates the diabolical character of Catholic spirituality. It's impious to strain against our creatureliness.***
I meant the state of abject creatureliness in which we now find ourselves, so limited and disconnected from God. The Christian strains toward God not out of lust for power (that would be diabolical), but out of love, seeking the fullness of communion. Correct, we will never be God, but the soma pneumatikon will put to shame this weak vessel which rises from dust and to dust returns.
The glorified state that the saints will inevitably enjoy will be far superior to our current mode of being. Indeed, it wil be far superior to our primeval state in Eden, for there the Serpent slithered about and Adam and Eve succumbed to sin, but in the new creation the Serpent shall be slain, and with him death and corruption, and our natures shall be so flooded by grace as to forbid the possibility of sin. There will be only perfect communion.
***We don't approach God–God approaches us. We don't find God, God finds us. ***
Agreed. Love always seeks the good of the other, so God seeks man and lifts him up from his lowly state, bathing him in the glory of His countenance.
***
ReplyDelete***"Heaven" is not the final state, but the intermediate state. Yet the Beatific Vision (in Catholicism) is the supernatural goal or telos of man. So that's fundamentally defective. It falls short. ***
This is the dogma of the Church:
1. The new creation is the final state and the true end of mankind.
2. The Beatific Vision, first experienced in heaven, is perfected by the resurrection.
3. In the words of the Catechism:
"*VI. THE HOPE OF THE NEW HEAVEN AND THE NEW EARTH
1042 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. The universe itself will be renewed:
The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.631
1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, "new heavens and a new earth."632 It will be the definitive realization of God's plan to bring under a single head "all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth."633
1044 In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men.634 "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."635
1045 For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation and of which the pilgrim Church has been "in the nature of sacrament."636 Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, "the holy city" of God, "the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."637 She will not be wounded any longer by sin, stains, self-love, that destroy or wound the earthly community.638 The beatific vision, in which God opens himself in an inexhaustible way to the elect, will be the ever-flowing well-spring of happiness, peace, and mutual communion.
1046 For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay. . . . We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.639
1047 The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, "so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just," sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.640
1048 "We know neither the moment of the consummation of the earth and of man, nor the way in which the universe will be transformed. The form of this world, distorted by sin, is passing away, and we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, in which happiness will fill and surpass all the desires of peace arising in the hearts of men."641
ReplyDelete1049 "Far from diminishing our concern to develop this earth, the expectancy of a new earth should spur us on, for it is here that the body of a new human family grows, foreshadowing in some way the age which is to come. That is why, although we must be careful to distinguish earthly progress clearly from the increase of the kingdom of Christ, such progress is of vital concern to the kingdom of God, insofar as it can contribute to the better ordering of human society."642
1050 "When we have spread on earth the fruits of our nature and our enterprise . . . according to the command of the Lord and in his Spirit, we will find them once again, cleansed this time from the stain of sin, illuminated and transfigured, when Christ presents to his Father an eternal and universal kingdom."643 God will then be "all in all" in eternal life:644
True and subsistent life consists in this: the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, pouring out his heavenly gifts on all things without exception. Thanks to his mercy, we too, men that we are, have received the inalienable promise of eternal life."
What part of this, if any, do you find so repellent and blasphemous?
Apologies for the lengthy excerpt. Thanks for taking the time to respond. God bless.
The Creator/creature distinction will always remain and therefore we will never be able to know or "see" God as He is in an unmediated way. One of the classic passages that Protestants have used is 1 Tim. 6:16.
ReplyDeletewho alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.(ESV)
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (KJV)
It seems there are, in the main, two types of Catholics: (1) those who are Catholic by culture and agnostic by faith and (2) those who earnestly believe in Christ, pray the Nicene Creed with genuine conviction, and lead lives of piety, humility, faith, hope, and love.
ReplyDeleteONLY two types? Have you never been to a third world Catholic country like Mexico or Philippines where there are a whole bunch of practices that are blasphemous. Where devotion to Mary passes the Catholic distinctions of dulia and hyperdulia and amounts to latria. Third world Catholicism is closer to Vatican I than modern sanitized Western Catholicism-lite.
Annoyed,
ReplyDeleteThe word "see" is not strictly literal. When Catholics say that we will "see God face-to-face," they mean that His glory will be visible to the eye of the resurrected body, but also that we will comprehend Him and commune with Him by spiritual faculties.
This comprehension and communion will be to a degree unimaginable in this life and unknown even to the First Parents.
In the new heavens and the new earth, the Godhead will no longer be hidden, and we in our spiritual bodies will enjoy a mode of existence that allows true vision of God, for we will be shot through with the light of His Being.
St. John says that "when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as he is." That is a radical statement and I have yet to hear one of you explain what it means. If we deny that the saints will "see" God, then we deny that the Risen One "sees" God, for the evangelist tells us that "we shall be like Him."
Gill comments on that verse:
"'we shall be like him;' in body, fashioned like to his glorious body, in immortality and incorruption, in power, in glory, and spirituality, in a freedom from all imperfections, sorrows, afflictions, and death; and in soul, which likeness will lie in perfect knowledge of divine things, and in complete holiness;
'for we shall see him as he is'; in his human nature, with the eyes of the body, and in his glorious person, with the eyes of the understanding; *not by faith, as now, but by sight*; not through ordinances, as in the present state, but through those beams of light and glory darting from him, with which the saints will be irradiated; and this sight, as it is now exceeding desirable, will be unspeakably glorious, delightful, and ravishing, soul satisfying, free from all darkness and error, and interruption; will assimilate and transform into his image and likeness, and be for ever. Philo the Jew observes (k), that Israel may be interpreted one that sees God; but adds, , "not what God is", for this is impossible: it is indeed impossible to see him essentially as he is, or so as to comprehend his nature, being, and perfections; but then the saints in heaven will see God and Christ as they are, and as much as they are to be seen by creatures; God will be seen as he is in Christ; and Christ will be seen as he is in himself, both in his divine and human natures, as much as can be, or can be desired to be seen and known of him."
PHILIP JUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete"This is the dogma of the Church"
At best, that's the current dogma of the Roman Church. Of course, I was quoting a medieval pope, not a post-Vatican II catechism.
Philip Jude said...
ReplyDelete"Some are called to live a life of poverty and chastity and obedience. Not most, but some."
Classic Catholic spooftexting. You begin with your denomination, then cast about for ex post facto warrant in Scripture.
i) Mt 19:21 is not a general command. Rather, that's addressed to one individual.
ii) The virgins in 1 Cor 7 don't take a vow of chastity. They are always at liberty to marry at some future date.
iii) The rich man in Mt 19 as well as the virgins in 1 Cor 7 don't take a vow of obedience to an abbot or pope.
"The glorified state that the saints will inevitably enjoy will be far superior to our current mode of being. Indeed, it wil be far superior to our primeval state in Eden, for there the Serpent slithered about and Adam and Eve succumbed to sin."
Of course, given the role of theistic evolution in modern Catholic theology, the Fall is no longer a historic event, but a religious metaphor for...who knows what.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteVoluntary chastity and poverty and self-denial appear throughout Scripture, from Elijah to Paul. They are not systematically espoused, as by monastics in later times, but the kernel of religious life is clearly visible.
"For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or were made to by men, there are others who have themselves renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept it who can" (Matthew 19:12).
“Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Luke 12:32-34).
Are you really so blind by your hatred of Catholicism that you cannot recognize the goodness of the monks and nuns who toil for the poor, the elderly, the sick in the name of Christ -- giving their whole existences to this cause. They do not work hard and then return to their nice homes and loving families at night. They return to pray and worship the Lord. What is possibly wrong with this, so long as it is not imposed upon those who are unwilling (a practice that, thankfully, has long since been abandoned). Would you object to a young man or woman in your congregation adopting chastity and poverty for the sake of the kingdom?
***i) Mt 19:21 is not a general command. Rather, that's addressed to one individual.***
Indeed, it was not a general command. That is why some Catholics are monks and some have ten kids! :-)
That said, there is no reason to believe it was meant *solely* for that one fellow. Scripture has multiple contexts; it communicates on several levels.
Many men and women, in diverse times and places, have heard Jesus speaking to them through that command. The great patron of monasticism, St Anthony of Egypt, was inspired by that very verse. Upon hearing it in church one day, he abandoned all his earthly belongings and gave himself over to prayer and repentance, evangelism and service.
This is the beauty of Scripture! It is not dead, locked in the past, relevant only to a narrow historical context. Rather, it is alive, dynamic, creative, transformative!
***ii) The virgins in 1 Cor 7 don't take a vow of chastity. They are always at liberty to marry at some future date.***
Vocations are freely chosen and freely maintained. I grant that for a time this was not the case: medieval families would "offer" their children to the Church, giving them little choice in the matter. That is wrong. Additionally, the monastic system has had its excesses and its corruptions. But so has every other human institution!
***iii) The rich man in Mt 19 as well as the virgins in 1 Cor 7 don't take a vow of obedience to an abbot or pope.***
Do you not expect "lay" members of your congregation to be obedient to elders and pastors and synods?
PHILIP JUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Voluntary chastity and poverty and self-denial appear throughout Scripture, from Elijah to Paul. They are not systematically espoused, as by monastics in later times, but the kernel of religious life is clearly visible.”
There’s nothing in your prooftexts about monks and nuns living in religious communities, with perpetual vows and obedience to the church.
Mt 19:12 isn’t a vow of chastity. And even if it were a vow, that’s between the celibate and God. The church doesn’t enforce his vow.
For instance, when ex-priest Anthony Kenny married, he was automatically excommunicated. There’s no justification for that in Scripture.
As for Lk 12:32-34:
i) In Catholicism, it has less to do with giving to the “poor” than giving to building projects like St. Peter’s basilica.
ii) The passage is set in the context of coming persecution. The potential cost of discipleship requires Christians to be prepared to lose their belongings in the face of persecution.
iii) In addition, this is also about wealthier Christians sharing with poorer Christians (cf. Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-35).
“Are you really so blind by your hatred of Catholicism that you cannot recognize the goodness of the monks and nuns who toil for the poor, the elderly, the sick in the name of Christ -- giving their whole existences to this cause. They do not work hard and then return to their nice homes and loving families at night. They return to pray and worship the Lord.”
i) Which doesn’t follow from your prooftexts.
ii) In addition, that’s bound up with a corrupt theology of supererogatory merit.
“That said, there is no reason to believe it was meant *solely* for that one fellow.”
To the contrary, that’s the specific context.
“Many men and women, in diverse times and places, have heard Jesus speaking to them through that command.”
Projecting something onto the text that isn’t there. It’s not addressed to them.
“This is the beauty of Scripture! It is not dead, locked in the past, relevant only to a narrow historical context. Rather, it is alive, dynamic, creative, transformative!”
Of course, that’s a false dichotomy. The way to properly apply Scripture is to first determine what it means in the original setting, then extrapolate that teaching to analogous situations.
That’s not what you are doing. To the contrary, you begin with your sectarian Catholic traditions, then attempt to retroactively validate your denominational tradition by taking Scripture out of context.
“Vocations are freely chosen and freely maintained.”
You’re dissembling. Monastic vows are treated as binding, perpetual obligations. Only your church can formally laicize a priest, monk, or nun. That’s not something you got from your prooftexts. Rather, you begin with whatever your denomination practices, then impose that on Scripture after the fact.
“Do you not expect ‘lay’ members of your congregation to be obedient to elders and pastors and synods?”
Accountability is a two-way street, not a parent/child relationship where the laity are treated like minors who require the adult supervision of the clergy.
Indeed, Catholicism is a cautionary tale of what happens when laymen are accountable to those above then while those above them are unaccountable.