"Maybe You're Catholic?" Part III of III

Even though I hadn't mentioned The Anchoress's recommendation to Tef,the aforementioned "Rome Sweet Home" magically showed up at the house one day. He'd ordered it spontaneously after an Amazon search. Hmm... But not until after we'd both ordered a copy of "The How-To Book of the Mass," by Michael Dubriel -- also without previous consultation. Interesting...

The title of Dubriel's book sounds simplistic, but it turned out to be a Godsend. Dubriel explains in detail where every aspect of the Mass originates and why Catholics say the prayers they say, sing the Kyrie and the Gloria, why they sit-stand-kneel, bless themselves and respond at appointed times. He explains the proper forms of the "beating of the breast", the genuflection, the bow, the crossing of oneself, and the proper focus one should maintain for the duration of Mass -- with Biblical parallels and the words of the Early Church for support.

In the end, I'm glad we ordered two copies, because mine ended up with underlines and notes in the margins all over. Which meant that not only had the Mass been illuminated, but at the second service we attended, I wasn't lost. I knew what was happening and why. Highly recommended.

But Scott Hahn really did a number on me. Getting through Rome Sweet Home" was painful, in a searingly beautiful way. Hahn had trodden the steps before me: first as a lifelong Presbyterian; then as a charismatic Presbyterian minister; and always as a student of advanced theology. So had his wife. They'd been through all the theological objections and knocked down more and more barriers against Catholicism until there were none left. Their struggle towards surrender took years. Along the way, their marriage was divided, children were born and they lost many of their friends as well as the support of their family. But only because the evidence for Catholicism was so fierce. Even in their reluctance they couldn't refute it with much -- other than their will.

(A week later, in another astounding "coincidence" Deacon emailed both Tef and myself that we should check out a little book by Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister, called... ? You guessed it. We both laughed. Seems the Holy Spirit really wanted us to give it a read.)

There were moments when, as Tef and I read together (him reading Dubriel, myself reading Hahn), that I had to squint one eye and suck my teeth in pain. The case had been laid, right in front of me throughout Scripture. And I, even as an "advanced" reader of the Bible, had not seen it before.

When you look at it, there are only about 4 major Protestant objections to the Catholic Church:
* the veneration of the Saints
* the veneration of Mary
* the infallibility of the Pope
* and Transubstantiation

The Saints

The idea of the veneration of the Saints was something that I'd always sort of believed in anyway. I talk to my grandmother (who passed in 2003) all the time. Most people do project outward to someone they love who has passed on. And I remember as a child, when I was committing some childish sin, thinking, "I know God, the angels and my grandfather are looking down from Heaven on me right now. And I know they're not happy with this." But no one had ever told me that. I just knew it to be true in my child's heart. So I already didn't see anything wrong with talking to them. But asking them to pray for me? That was kind of... new. Why did I need someone else to pray for me? I could pray for myself. It hadn't dawned on me before that I ask my friends on Earth to pray for me all the time.

The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).

And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren't just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

And consider one of the parables of Jesus:

Luke 16:19-31 --
19 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25 "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27 "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29 "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30 " 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Sounds like something's going on with the saints in Heaven.

And I don't mind the statues and pictures of the Saints being displayed. Just as I don't mind having pictures of my family and friends in photo albums and frames all over my house.

But though there's major love there, there is no worship. A serious distinction can be made between talking to someone, loving someone and worshipping them. I love my husband with all my heart. I talk to him all the time. I ask him to help me. I ask him to pray for me. But do I worship him? Certainly not... Despite the occasional protestation.

Kidding aside: does this mean I'm comfortable enough with calling on the Saints to venture there myself? Um... not yet... But the case has certainly been made for their veneration. I'm sure that in time, it will become a cherished part of my prayer life. Even if it doesn't, I don't think God will mind.

Mary

Ouch.

That's all I can say. Mary's tough. Mary's a real... stumbling block. But she doesn't have to be. There's all kinds of research you can do on the subject of Mary, so I won't bother with tons of theology here. Although I am hoping that the Easter bunny will bring me a copy of Hahn's, Hail, Holy Queen for further study, but nevertheless... I'll try to keep it short and sweet, if I can, by asking a few questions:

1) In the Hebrew Scriptures (aka, The Old Testament), why was the Ark of the Covenant given such honor and respect?
2) What was actually housed within the Ark?
3) Why was the Ark to be made of the finest and purest materials?
4) Was the Ark worshipped or simply revered?
5) Were Adam and Eve pure and free of sin before they chose to eat the forbidden fruit?
6) Who made them pure?

It's important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ's conception in Mary's womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain -- that's what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God's grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings. [...]

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ's grace at her conception, she had His grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain. [...]

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. She housed the Word of God. You know, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."?

There's also a very good case to be made that she was, in fact, a perpetual virgin. Again, numerous resources can be found to substantiate this point of view. Not least of which are the writings of the early Reformers themselves. (Look up: "Luther, Calvin, Marian doctrine" on your favorite search engine: surprising results -- guaranteed.)

And since we've already conceded the veneration of the Saints, why not talk to Mary? A "Hail Mary" is nothing more than the words spoken to her by the Angel Gabriel (in Luke 1, emphasis added): "28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, "Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." An angel is a messenger of God. An angel cannot proclaim anything God has not authorized. Clearly God thinks pretty highly of Mary.

Later, in Luke 1 (emphasis added) there are additional words spoken to her by her cousin Elizabeth: "41 And it came to pass, that, when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe [John the Baptist] leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."

As Mother of God (Luke 1:43 -- "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"), she has been made Jesus' "Queen Mother", just like any other King's Mother.

The only additional text in the "Hail Mary" is a request that she pray for us which, as we have already conceded, is not unsound theology.

Marian adoration? Yeah... the adoration that Scripture has already accorded her. But worship it ain't. Again... am I comfortable? Sort of. There are times when I need a mother, let me tell ya'. So the prayer is attractive, I'll concede.

The Infallibility of the Pope

This is mostly a misunderstanding of papal doctrine.

The Catholic Church's teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter's successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25). [...]

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won't sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope's private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching. Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope. What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do -- through study -- though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.

I'm still not sure I know EXACTLY what this means, though I am relieved that it doesn't assert that the Pope is sinless and perfect. Whew! 'Cuz if it did, we were gonna' have real theological th'ow down.

I'm basically content to interpret that it means as long as the Pope is Pope and is proclaiming the Gospel of Christ, that when he makes strictly theological proclamations for the Catholic Church (in concert with intense study and prayer alongside the College of Cardinals) he's doing right for the Bride of Christ in the eyes of God, inspired by the Holy Spririt.

Transubstantiation

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus
is literally and wholly present -- body and blood, soul and divinity -- under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17, 11:23-29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32-71). The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers' teachings on Christ's Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior's body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

From the Church's early days, the Fathers referred to Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that... [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body.... Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord's body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord's real humanity" (ibid., 197-98). "Hippolytus speaks of 'the body and the blood' through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as 'the Lord's body.' The converted pagan, he remarks, 'feeds on the richness of the Lord's body, that is, on the Eucharist.'

The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist 'the flesh feeds upon Christ's body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.' Clearly his assumption is that the Savior's body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian's attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, 'do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.' Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211-12).

Okay. But maybe the Catholics are taking all of this a little too seriously, even if there is "proof". Maybe He was drawing a stark symbolic and metaphoric picture for us. Something along the lines of, "Make my words and spirit your food and drink every day." Jesus did, after all, say many things that were sort of esoteric, like destroying the Temple and rebuilding it again in three days. But... Stop for a second and think. What else are we required to believe about Jesus?

Are we required to believe any easier things than this? Doesn't believing in Jesus as the Son of God require many higher and harder leaps of faith than the Real Presence?

Belief calls us to have faith in His miracles: the raising of the dead, healing of the lame, the blind and the leprous.

Belief calls us to have faith in His Person: God in human flesh.

Belief calls us to have faith in His promises: comfort, mercy, forgiveness, heaven.

Belief calls us to have faith in His resurrection for the love o' Pete! I mean... Really! If Christ is Who we say we believe He is... Well... We're either deluded idiots who were fleeced by a very mentally ill first-century nut case (who ran around proclaiming himself God) or we're the children of God Almighty through the sacrifice of His Heir, Jesus. The latter is just basic Christianity.

And if the Real Precense is indeed true, it is a most wondrous and adorable gift. Our God and Savior and Greatest Defender said He would be with us "until the end of the Age". He promised never to leave us or forsake us. If the Real Presence is indeed true, it is our sustenance and ability to do the will of God. Because we certainly are not able to do it by ourselves. And it is indeed, Emmanuel, "God with us."



Okay, so where does this leave Protestantism? I dunno'. *shrug* I've been one all my life. All my friends are. All my family is. All my co-workers are. Most of the people I rub shoulders with every day are. Am I claiming the superiority of the Catholic Church? Yes and no. I'm claiming (so far) its superiority for me. It's answering many questions and filling in many gaps for me to be sure. Does that mean I want to ram it down anyone else's throat?

I have the same attitude about the evangelism of Catholicism as I did with Protestantism -- a gentle one. If you want to know, I'll tell you. But you'll probably be able to pick up on the fact that I'm a Christian before I even open my mouth about it because of the way I live my life and what my priorities are. That, to me, is the most effective form of evangelism. People can pontificate all day long, but in the end, it comes down to their actions. Period.

That aside, I know that for as long as I sat on the pews and worked in the fields of Protestantism, I was hungry and thirsty for Jesus. I never quit in my determination to get to know Him; to honor Him; to proclaim Him in my heart; or to worship Him as Head and All of my lfe. It would be gross folly to stand and point at Protestantism as the font of evil. It would be a slander against nearly everything and everyone I hold dear. So I will not do it. Even in my enthusiasm for the Catholic Church, never will I draw the lines so boldly around it as to fence out anyone who calls on the Name of Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:12-27
12 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body -- whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free -- and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.