Ecclesiasticus 18: 1-5
"He that liveth forever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king forever. Who is able to declare his works? For who shall search out his glorious acts? And who shall shew forth the power of his majesty? Or who shall be able to declare his mercy? Nothing may be taken away, nor added, neither is it possible to find out the glorious works of God..."
What a great passage! Let's dissect this shall we? Here we have a perfectly ordered idea before us. First we are presented by the Author with the infinite nature of the Creator and then the infinite nature of His works. Just as man is created and therefore creates out of that which is created, here we see that God Who is uncreated creates out of that which is uncreated. This is what Paul was talking about when we access the wonders and power of God in Christ through faith,"... calling those thing that were not as though they be."
To prove God's infinite nature, he does not address His person. Rather, he points out the nature of His works, at the same time showing man his finite nature. He does this so that man will first acknowledge his own nature so that he can begin to recognize God's nature. Being fully aware of his own limitations, man begins to be aware of God's boundless nature. For it is self-evident to all rational creatures that they're limited by their natures. Hence, by this scripture we are made to know that just as God's nature is not delimited, neither is His person and we are sure hereby that He is God.
And who is able to declare His works? Being thusly convinced of his own finite nature and God's infinite nature, man is made to know that he is a microcosm in a macrocosm. His understanding is limited by his own nature. If man knows anything beyond himself it is because the macrocosm of God condescends knowledge to him. And if a man knows anything about himself, then it is only because the Macrocosm caused him to be. In this way man is convinced that all things must come from God and that man can neither add to or take away from their sum. He may know with certainty that even the sum of created things is too excellent for him and learns true humility. Understanding the nobility he has over other creations, man begins to know his order in creation and begins to understand God's love for him.
Man is a microcosm of a macrocosm. God cannot but love man, because he is the image of Himself. And if man is disordered, God is motivated by primal love of Himself to restore the microcosm to homeostasis. The macrocosm will make the microcosm anew. Like from like, and we are convinced of the Incarnation, knowing that God had to become man to make us anew.
When the Blessed Trinity looked down on man's fallen state, the three Persons of the Holy Trinity each were moved to compassion. This is because the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. Together they love the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit loves Them; one God, pure, unadulterated love. In looking on man, each Person of the Holy Trinity saw the other two Persons explicit in man's nature. It was the love of God that caused the salvation of mankind primarily. Their love of each Other necessitated the Incarnation. That same divine love is why Christ endured all things.
The only way than man can show anything about God is by being a perfect microcosm, to do more than this not in man's power. But by being perfect, man becomes one with the Macrocosm. In becoming one with God he begins to participate in superhuman activities. His love becomes God's love, his thoughts become God's thoughts because he is taught of God, his motives become God's motives. Man when rightly ordered is absorbed into the macrocosm of God, maintaining his own unique person, yet uniting in fact with the Person of God. And we've seen these people, who God put in order and brought into His bosom and they are the saints.
But who shall search out his glorious acts? And who shall shew forth the power of his majesty? Or who shall be able to declare his mercy? None, except God, because it is written that we shall no longer say to one another,"Know God!" but rather that we shall be, each of us, taught of God ourselves. It is God who shows forth His glorious acts and the power of His majesty. It is God who declares His mercy. But having been united with God, man may begin to know and do those things that were too great for his nature. This is the work of Christ, and for this purpose it is written," You shall be as gods to the Egyptians." the Egyptians not only being themselves, but also representing a type of fallen man, a microcosm cut off from the Macrocosm.
We cannot comprehend the gift of God and that is why it is the most that we can do, by the very limit of our natures, to adore Him. That is why our adoration of Him is the meaning and purpose of life; it is incumbent upon us. It is the sacrifice due to Him; it was why we were made. Our adoration must be total and complete; we must love as He loves. This is why Christ said," I give you a new commandment: love one another as I have loved you... This is how all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one." It must extend to all things: what we do, what we do not do, our intentions, our actions, our thoughts, all things. And this is why we are exhorted by the holy apostle St. Paul to,"...work out our salvation." and the holy apostle St. James says," Faith without works is dead." This is how we are to know full well that the "once saved, always saved" doctrine is a heresy and a lie designed to make us lazy and rob us of our blessings and salvation. Strive to workout your salvation.
Just as St. Paul says, you were foreknown, predestined to salvation by God. Therefore, seek to make your calling and election sure through good works, as though you could justify your own election. Be blessed, all of you and pray for me a sinner.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Showing posts with label Evangelical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evangelical. Show all posts
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Monday, 3 January 2011
The Communion of the Saints
This is quite possibly one of the most self-evident and easiest doctrines of the Church to defend and explain. This is because it follows necessarily from faith in Christ.
When we think of the word "communion" we might think of several things. We may think of the Eucharist, we may think of juice and cracker packets, we may think of unity, solemn prayers, etc. Depending on who we are, the word communion can be rather nebulous. Rarely do people stop and look at the obvious etymology of the word: common-union. Some common union must be effected in order for communion to be effected. We must participate in that common union to be affected by the communion.
Now, the Catholic dogma known as the "Communion of the Saints" states that the Church Militant (the Church alive on Earth) benefits from the intercession of the Church Triumphant (the Church in Heaven) and the Church Purgative (those in Purgatory) benefits from the intercession of both the Church Triumphant and Militant. These three have a common union with each other because they are commonly unified in Christ by the Holy Spirit. That is to say, they are each of them individually and all of them communally unified with God the Father and God the Son, having been incorporated by the gift of the Holy Spirit who is God.
All true Trinitarian theology states that there is one God, three Persons. Further, it is stated that the Holy Spirit is the mutual love that God the Father has for God the Son and visa versa. Therefore, the Holy Spirit while being God, is the union between God the Father and God the Son. So, it follows necessarily that the Holy Spirit is equally God. There is no disputation or discrepancy on this point between Christians, regardless of whether they be from the Orthodoxies in the East, the Roman Church in the West and those in communion with her, or even amongst the Protestants. If anyone denies these essentials they deny what Christianity has faith in and are not Christians, ipso facto.
The purpose of bringing this up is to show, or remind rather, what kind of union it is that the Christian is incorporated into. The union takes on the attributes of the unified; for this reason God became a man. St. Gregory of Nazianzus said," That which is not assumed is not redeemed." God shared in our humanity so that we might share in His divinity. Being human ourselves we know precisely what it means for Him to take on humanity.
But what does it mean to put on divinity? Does the Catholic faith teach that we become gods independent from the One True God? By no means. It teaches that we share in what He promises, namely His Holy Spirit. So then, what does it mean to share in this divinity? It means that we will be holy as He is holy, it means that we share in His eternal life, in His omnipotence, in His omnipresence. It means that we enjoy that same degree of closeness with the Trinity that It enjoys Itself. This is accomplished by the work of Christ, at the good pleasure of the Father, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Now, it is written in the Book of Hebrews that we have been given an eternal priesthood, in the order of Melchizedek and that we have a High priest, who is Christ. Christ is both the Lamb who was sacrificed and the Priest who sacrificed Himself for us and we know this from the Gospels, because he told them that no one takes His life away from Him, but He lays it down for His sheep and has the power to take it up again. And He tells us further that this command is from His Father.
Now, there is no other purpose for a priest except for to make sacrifice for the people, but here we see that Christ the high priest has made a sacrifice once and for all. And yet our priesthood does not end here; no, much to the contrary, we hear that ours is an eternal priesthood. What does this mean? Let us examine. God is infinite and God was sacrificed, therefore the sacrifice is infinite. We behold an infinite sacrifice of mercy, more than sufficient for the offenses of mankind. But why then are we yet priests?
St. Paul says," How I wish that I were with you to make up for that which is lacking in the wounds of Christ!" Does St. Paul contradict what we know to be true, which is precisely what we just stated, that Christ's sacrifice is more than sufficient for the sins of mankind? By no means does he disagree, but understand what he means to say... you and I are the wounds of Christ. Not only this, but we must assist one another and workout our own salvation, meeting faith with works and giving life to the hope we have in Him, participating with the work of Christ.
If then we are the Body of Christ, which is the Church, and we are the wounds of Christ shouldn't we know that we have become once with the Eternal Sacrifice and the same Priest who did sacrifice It? Aside from all this, don't priests also make offerings of prayer? Isn't it written that our praise and prayers go up to heaven as an offering of sweet smelling incense? We offer these prayers and praises not only for ourselves, but for each other and the whole world, because God wills that all men shall be saved according to the scriptures.
We read in the Gospel that after Christ was done answering the Sadducees concerning their question about marriage and the resurrection He gave them evidence of the resurrection and proof of the life of the righteous. He said unto them that when God spoke to Moses in the bush He said," I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." And Christ said that God was a God of the living and not of the dead.
So, what is this that you say that the dead are cut off from the living? Who told you this and where did you read it? Did you forget that Moses and Elijah were present at Christ's transfiguration? How then do you define eternal life? If you say that the soul lives, where? If the soul is present in the body the body is alive, and if the soul is absent from the body the body is dead. And if the soul is alive the body shall live; this is the resurrection.
If then you have eternal life and an eternal priesthood, don't you know that you will not cease your priesthood in bodily death, seeing that the soul yet lives? Or do you believe that you are only a priest sometimes, and that you only kind of have eternal life? Eternal means one thing only, there is no such thing as delimited eternal life. Either it's eternal or it's not. There's no such thing as a delimited eternal priesthood; you either participate eternally in an eternal priesthood or you don't.
So, what's your priestly duty after you have died? Will it not surely be to pray for those who toil on the earth against temptation to evil and the power of darkness? Will you not pray for those souls which fly toward God and experience a painful purging, which is called Purgatory?
Do you suppose you will pray as feebly as you do, now? Ignorant of what is needed, deluded by vanity, swayed and distracted by the flesh, deceived by sin? Or will you, standing in the presence of God, after having come through the fire, not pray more perfectly? Will you not confess what we already know to be true, which is precisely what we said earlier, that we share in the divinity of Christ just as He shares in our humanity? Will you not enjoy His omnipotence, His omnipresence, His wisdom, His compassion, His knowledge, His understanding? You must already know that you will!
And wouldn't you prefer someone to be praying for you in this manner? When you communicate to these saints who have gone on before you, how will they hear you? Will your prayer be carried on the wind into heaven to souls that do not have bodies, and therefore have no ears? Don't you know that you rather will communicate by a common union, namely by the Holy Spirit? Are you confused, even though you know that you are One in Christ and both have the same Holy Spirit, and share in the same eternal life and are members of the same priesthood, with One High Priest? This is the 'Communion of the Saints.'
Now, without a doubt, there are many of you who until this point are saying that Christ alone is the Mediator between God and man. You are right, but here you show more than a little confusion. We know that He is in us and we are in Him. Further, we know that we are the Body of Christ and that we are His wounds. Then, why are you so fearful as though this mediation is not done in Christ? You yourselves just now said that Christ is the Mediator between God and man. Listen to your own mouth, friend, and be taught by yourselves that the doctrine of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is true.
And if there is anyone else who says that they shall have none pray for them but Christ alone, to you I say charitably and gently, do not be a hypocrite. You are the same person who asks his fellows to pray for him, you are the one who says," I covet your prayers." You are the one who when distressed looks for the one who seems the most spiritual among you and ask him to pray for you; very often it's your pastor. Therefore, again, do not be a hypocrite concerning the Church and the things of God.
The communion of the saints is a blessing to us. The Saints in heaven, those martyrs and Apostles, innocents and holy, are not bound as they once were by the flesh, praying for one person at a time. They now pray perfectly and intimately for you and me and for all, without ceasing. This is the will of the Father, established by Christ, accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Christ has prepared this for you and set it before you on the table. Christ said that whoever rejects those whom He sends also rejects Him; and whosoever rejects the Son rejects the Father also, because He and the Father are One. It is not right to reject Him. "Today, if you hear the call of the Lord, harden not your heart."
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
When we think of the word "communion" we might think of several things. We may think of the Eucharist, we may think of juice and cracker packets, we may think of unity, solemn prayers, etc. Depending on who we are, the word communion can be rather nebulous. Rarely do people stop and look at the obvious etymology of the word: common-union. Some common union must be effected in order for communion to be effected. We must participate in that common union to be affected by the communion.
Now, the Catholic dogma known as the "Communion of the Saints" states that the Church Militant (the Church alive on Earth) benefits from the intercession of the Church Triumphant (the Church in Heaven) and the Church Purgative (those in Purgatory) benefits from the intercession of both the Church Triumphant and Militant. These three have a common union with each other because they are commonly unified in Christ by the Holy Spirit. That is to say, they are each of them individually and all of them communally unified with God the Father and God the Son, having been incorporated by the gift of the Holy Spirit who is God.
All true Trinitarian theology states that there is one God, three Persons. Further, it is stated that the Holy Spirit is the mutual love that God the Father has for God the Son and visa versa. Therefore, the Holy Spirit while being God, is the union between God the Father and God the Son. So, it follows necessarily that the Holy Spirit is equally God. There is no disputation or discrepancy on this point between Christians, regardless of whether they be from the Orthodoxies in the East, the Roman Church in the West and those in communion with her, or even amongst the Protestants. If anyone denies these essentials they deny what Christianity has faith in and are not Christians, ipso facto.
The purpose of bringing this up is to show, or remind rather, what kind of union it is that the Christian is incorporated into. The union takes on the attributes of the unified; for this reason God became a man. St. Gregory of Nazianzus said," That which is not assumed is not redeemed." God shared in our humanity so that we might share in His divinity. Being human ourselves we know precisely what it means for Him to take on humanity.
But what does it mean to put on divinity? Does the Catholic faith teach that we become gods independent from the One True God? By no means. It teaches that we share in what He promises, namely His Holy Spirit. So then, what does it mean to share in this divinity? It means that we will be holy as He is holy, it means that we share in His eternal life, in His omnipotence, in His omnipresence. It means that we enjoy that same degree of closeness with the Trinity that It enjoys Itself. This is accomplished by the work of Christ, at the good pleasure of the Father, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Now, it is written in the Book of Hebrews that we have been given an eternal priesthood, in the order of Melchizedek and that we have a High priest, who is Christ. Christ is both the Lamb who was sacrificed and the Priest who sacrificed Himself for us and we know this from the Gospels, because he told them that no one takes His life away from Him, but He lays it down for His sheep and has the power to take it up again. And He tells us further that this command is from His Father.
Now, there is no other purpose for a priest except for to make sacrifice for the people, but here we see that Christ the high priest has made a sacrifice once and for all. And yet our priesthood does not end here; no, much to the contrary, we hear that ours is an eternal priesthood. What does this mean? Let us examine. God is infinite and God was sacrificed, therefore the sacrifice is infinite. We behold an infinite sacrifice of mercy, more than sufficient for the offenses of mankind. But why then are we yet priests?
St. Paul says," How I wish that I were with you to make up for that which is lacking in the wounds of Christ!" Does St. Paul contradict what we know to be true, which is precisely what we just stated, that Christ's sacrifice is more than sufficient for the sins of mankind? By no means does he disagree, but understand what he means to say... you and I are the wounds of Christ. Not only this, but we must assist one another and workout our own salvation, meeting faith with works and giving life to the hope we have in Him, participating with the work of Christ.
If then we are the Body of Christ, which is the Church, and we are the wounds of Christ shouldn't we know that we have become once with the Eternal Sacrifice and the same Priest who did sacrifice It? Aside from all this, don't priests also make offerings of prayer? Isn't it written that our praise and prayers go up to heaven as an offering of sweet smelling incense? We offer these prayers and praises not only for ourselves, but for each other and the whole world, because God wills that all men shall be saved according to the scriptures.
We read in the Gospel that after Christ was done answering the Sadducees concerning their question about marriage and the resurrection He gave them evidence of the resurrection and proof of the life of the righteous. He said unto them that when God spoke to Moses in the bush He said," I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." And Christ said that God was a God of the living and not of the dead.
So, what is this that you say that the dead are cut off from the living? Who told you this and where did you read it? Did you forget that Moses and Elijah were present at Christ's transfiguration? How then do you define eternal life? If you say that the soul lives, where? If the soul is present in the body the body is alive, and if the soul is absent from the body the body is dead. And if the soul is alive the body shall live; this is the resurrection.
If then you have eternal life and an eternal priesthood, don't you know that you will not cease your priesthood in bodily death, seeing that the soul yet lives? Or do you believe that you are only a priest sometimes, and that you only kind of have eternal life? Eternal means one thing only, there is no such thing as delimited eternal life. Either it's eternal or it's not. There's no such thing as a delimited eternal priesthood; you either participate eternally in an eternal priesthood or you don't.
So, what's your priestly duty after you have died? Will it not surely be to pray for those who toil on the earth against temptation to evil and the power of darkness? Will you not pray for those souls which fly toward God and experience a painful purging, which is called Purgatory?
Do you suppose you will pray as feebly as you do, now? Ignorant of what is needed, deluded by vanity, swayed and distracted by the flesh, deceived by sin? Or will you, standing in the presence of God, after having come through the fire, not pray more perfectly? Will you not confess what we already know to be true, which is precisely what we said earlier, that we share in the divinity of Christ just as He shares in our humanity? Will you not enjoy His omnipotence, His omnipresence, His wisdom, His compassion, His knowledge, His understanding? You must already know that you will!
And wouldn't you prefer someone to be praying for you in this manner? When you communicate to these saints who have gone on before you, how will they hear you? Will your prayer be carried on the wind into heaven to souls that do not have bodies, and therefore have no ears? Don't you know that you rather will communicate by a common union, namely by the Holy Spirit? Are you confused, even though you know that you are One in Christ and both have the same Holy Spirit, and share in the same eternal life and are members of the same priesthood, with One High Priest? This is the 'Communion of the Saints.'
Now, without a doubt, there are many of you who until this point are saying that Christ alone is the Mediator between God and man. You are right, but here you show more than a little confusion. We know that He is in us and we are in Him. Further, we know that we are the Body of Christ and that we are His wounds. Then, why are you so fearful as though this mediation is not done in Christ? You yourselves just now said that Christ is the Mediator between God and man. Listen to your own mouth, friend, and be taught by yourselves that the doctrine of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is true.
And if there is anyone else who says that they shall have none pray for them but Christ alone, to you I say charitably and gently, do not be a hypocrite. You are the same person who asks his fellows to pray for him, you are the one who says," I covet your prayers." You are the one who when distressed looks for the one who seems the most spiritual among you and ask him to pray for you; very often it's your pastor. Therefore, again, do not be a hypocrite concerning the Church and the things of God.
The communion of the saints is a blessing to us. The Saints in heaven, those martyrs and Apostles, innocents and holy, are not bound as they once were by the flesh, praying for one person at a time. They now pray perfectly and intimately for you and me and for all, without ceasing. This is the will of the Father, established by Christ, accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Christ has prepared this for you and set it before you on the table. Christ said that whoever rejects those whom He sends also rejects Him; and whosoever rejects the Son rejects the Father also, because He and the Father are One. It is not right to reject Him. "Today, if you hear the call of the Lord, harden not your heart."
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Sunday, 26 December 2010
Why Every Christian Needs the Catholic Church-Things You've Never Thought About
I'm in the process of transferring a lot of my notes, so bear with me:
It's been quite some time since I've written anything to the Protestants. But they have entered into my mind once again, with their assertions that the Catholic religion is superfluous to Christianity. I am convinced that the majority of those who hold this opinion have never given any real thought to the matter. So, being willing and quite able to supply, I figured that I would do through exercise of reason what they have lost the ability to do by the atrophy thereof, namely, reason. Let it be noted that this is a general reply to certain assertions made by Protestants. I'll just begin...
The Protestants claim that Catholicism is superfluous to Christianity; they do this through a number of stock charges, all of which are fallacious, the majority of which are strawmen. But that is neither here nor there. I do not feel compelled to defend the Church; I've see enough feeble assaults against it by Protestants to convince me that it is in fact unassailable. I am much more interested in what the Protestants who make this argument think they know.
If the Catholic religion is a superfluity, if it is a body of man-made traditions, doctrines, and dogmas unnecessary to salvation and a proper Christian faith and they claim to have discovered this, then, it follows that they must know what is essential to the Christian faith. In fact, I don't think that there is any danger in me saying that Protestants must imagine that they are bare essential Christians.
If I was to ask them what things are essential to the Christian faith, what can we imagine them to say? I suppose that they would say several things are necessary: faith in salvation through Jesus Christ, the bible, the Holy Spirit. Further, if I were to then ask them which person has a purifying effect upon the people of God, I would get several different answers: the pastors, the community of believers, and the Holy Spirit.
So, here I have the Protestant faith in general which states that a biblical faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation. Further, that the whole community of believers has a refining effect upon the Christian and that the Holy Spirit is his guide in all of this. Now, we have six things to examine, here, six essentials beyond which the Christian, according to the Protestant, has need of nothing.
So, let us discuss pastors in general. How are they chosen? Are they selected from seminaries or do they begin as house church leaders, or something like that; or do all of those things occur? Certainly, all of those things occur; no one would say that all Protestant pastors have seminary and likewise no one would say that none of them do. In any case, who does the selecting? The individual churches, of course, choose their pastors. In some cases, the former pastor will choose a new pastor and so on. But in the end, if the church is discontented with the pastor, whether he has seminary or not they will eject him from their employ. And if the people do not have the power to eject him they will leave and go to another Church.
So, I must ask the question again, who does the choosing? It is the people who choose. Further, having seminary might be a means of more directly gaining employment as a pastor, but it is not usually a factor in whether or not a pastor keeps his position. Ergo, if a man without seminary finds himself employed as the pastor of a protestant community, his having seminary on his resume is not going to be a factor of whether or not he remains the pastor. Therefore, there is no real advantage to seminary beyond gaining employment. What matters is the people's opinion of the man.
This I find extremely strange. When a man goes to receive his doctorate in the medical arts, he does not go before a board of nurses, but instead he goes before a board of medical doctors. Or if a person went to receive a license of any kind, don't we all know that they must receive the license from someone else so licensed? Whoever obtains a drivers license must obtain the license from someone who can drive, and whoever obtains a license for gun ownership must obtain it from someone apt in teaching the laws concerning ownership. Therefore, the person without seminary who claims themselves a pastor is like a person who claims to license themselves.
Also, if the community decides that he is to be a pastor, I find this even more strange. The ignorant are commissioning a teacher as though they are qualified to do so! A person is a teacher because they are apt in knowledge, the pupil is the pupil because he is ignorant of what the teacher teaches. If the pupil is ignorant of what he will be taught, then it follows necessarily that he is ignorant of what he needs to be taught, who knows it, and who is able to teach it. Imagine, that we took a rhetorician, whose task it is to convince through routine the ignorant of whatever he pleases, and placed him in with eight doctors. Let us further say that we placed them before a crowd of average people. Whom do you suppose the ignorant mass of people will say is the best of the doctors? It is certain they will say the man who speaks the best is the best doctor. They have no objective way of gauging the excellence of the doctors, because they are ignorant of the art. It is for the very reason of their ignorance that they need a doctor!
So, having selected the rhetorician to be their doctor, do you suppose they will enjoy many benefits because of this? Do you suppose that they will enjoy great health by him? No, they certainly will not. And so we know that not only are the people ill equipped to select good teachers for themselves because of their ignorance, but that they have even less business choosing a teacher from amongst their ignorant fellows. The person without seminary has no business in either case, whether he chooses himself or is chosen by his fellows, to be a pastor.
Now, concerning the man who has been to seminary, let us examine. If we went to a doctor and became dissatisfied with him and demanded his license to be revoked, how would we go about this? We would take him to court and lawyers would go find his peers, true doctors, and his practice would be examined. If his peers found that he was guilty of malpractice then he would surely be punished to the fullest extent possible. We would not simply strip him of his license and rights because a rabble of discontented folk, ignorant in medicine, brought an accusation against him. Never!
Likewise, if we find that a doctor is guilty of malpractice, but the patients love him and make many excuses for him will this in anyway prevent the law from delivering what it must, namely, justice? Will pathetic pleas and stories of how great and faithful a family doctor he was save him from the fact of his malpractice of medicine? No, never! He will be striped of his license and prevented from practicing medicine wherever the law can prohibit it and fines and possibly imprisonment will follow.
In this way, the doctor is aloof from the ignorance of his patients. When he is a good doctor and they are bad patients he is safe and secure in his position and they still have recourse to him because he provides to them what they cannot provide to themselves. When he is a bad doctor, the ignorant nostalgia and favoritism of his patients will not save him and he will no longer be allowed to misapply the art of medical science. The doctor is established by his peers and knowledge which no man takes away.
It should be the same with pastors. However, as our inquiry has revealed, this is not the case. Ordained ministers find themselves a congregation of one if they do not do as the ignorant require. The ordained minister is not protected from the ignorance of his people at all. He must be careful not to hurt them, even if he must; he must be careful to entertain them and conform to their expectations. If he doesn't they will abandon him or eject him from employment. If at any time they become discontented with the ordained minister, they will prefer the unordained man who knows how to tickle their ears, to him.
And how can we be sure of this? Which would children prefer, the teacher who teaches or the teacher who gives them games? The one who gives them games. And which do the children prefer to listen to, a block of instruction, or a story? A story. And which one will the people rather encounter, a police officer who is lax or one who delivers justice? The officer who is lax. And I could continue on this way, ad infinitum.
We can, therefore, confidently know which man the congregation will prefer. So, what Protestants posses is democracy, which is the worst form of government. Democracy descends into despotism, because mob always gives birth to a tyrant. Democracy always murders itself and chooses the wrong instead of the good. It is short sighted, selfish, ignorant, anarchic. In this "democratic Christianity" that Protestants possess who is in charge? Obviously, the same people who are in charge in all democracies, man in general. I can devise of no other form of government which is more dissimilar to monarchy than democracy. Where is the singular rule of Apostolic authority? Where is Christ the king? How ironic that they accuse the Catholic Church of being an organization of men, when they have democracy. Their communities simply could not be more man-made. You begin to see why I said I don't think that Protestants have given any real thought to their position on the Catholic religion.
But we should hold right here, because here we find that the Protestants have been consistent in one thing: they asserted that the whole community of faith has a refining effect on the Christian. This keeps with their democratic attitude. And I'm certain that when I said," Where is Christ the king?" some of you were saying," He is in all of us!" So, Protestants claim then, that they whole community of faith has a refining effect on the Christian. Then, you have only to shut off from the outside world and make your communities exclusive and you will be excellent. But what does history tell us about such experiments? I think that the Puritans are sufficient evidence that this is not true, witch trials and all.
Protestants claim that because they have the holy Spirit, the bible, and have Jesus in their hearts, that they all have a refining effect upon one another. But what about health, because the business of the church primarily is the health of the soul, or as the Protestants like to say, the spirit? So, what about other kinds of health? What of mental health? Do all people have a refining effect on the health of the mind, or do only some people have a positive effect on the mind? And bodily health, too; do all people have a positive effect on the health of the body, or only a few people? Obviously, only a few people do good to these and the rest do damage or nothing.
And what about people who live in houses, do they all know how to build houses because they possess them? Or people who drive cars, do they know how to make them, because they own them? Or people with tumors, do they know how to treat them because they possess them? No, only a few know how. But here, then, the Protestant stands confuted with his mouth open, because it is obvious even to children that there is no way that everyone has a refining effect, but rather that only a few have this effect. So, the democratic nature of Protestant Christianity is necessarily counter-intuitive to the end of religion, just as it would be counter-intuitive to bodily health if suddenly everyone claimed to be a surgeon.
If they understand this, why are they doing this?
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
It's been quite some time since I've written anything to the Protestants. But they have entered into my mind once again, with their assertions that the Catholic religion is superfluous to Christianity. I am convinced that the majority of those who hold this opinion have never given any real thought to the matter. So, being willing and quite able to supply, I figured that I would do through exercise of reason what they have lost the ability to do by the atrophy thereof, namely, reason. Let it be noted that this is a general reply to certain assertions made by Protestants. I'll just begin...
The Protestants claim that Catholicism is superfluous to Christianity; they do this through a number of stock charges, all of which are fallacious, the majority of which are strawmen. But that is neither here nor there. I do not feel compelled to defend the Church; I've see enough feeble assaults against it by Protestants to convince me that it is in fact unassailable. I am much more interested in what the Protestants who make this argument think they know.
If the Catholic religion is a superfluity, if it is a body of man-made traditions, doctrines, and dogmas unnecessary to salvation and a proper Christian faith and they claim to have discovered this, then, it follows that they must know what is essential to the Christian faith. In fact, I don't think that there is any danger in me saying that Protestants must imagine that they are bare essential Christians.
If I was to ask them what things are essential to the Christian faith, what can we imagine them to say? I suppose that they would say several things are necessary: faith in salvation through Jesus Christ, the bible, the Holy Spirit. Further, if I were to then ask them which person has a purifying effect upon the people of God, I would get several different answers: the pastors, the community of believers, and the Holy Spirit.
So, here I have the Protestant faith in general which states that a biblical faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation. Further, that the whole community of believers has a refining effect upon the Christian and that the Holy Spirit is his guide in all of this. Now, we have six things to examine, here, six essentials beyond which the Christian, according to the Protestant, has need of nothing.
So, let us discuss pastors in general. How are they chosen? Are they selected from seminaries or do they begin as house church leaders, or something like that; or do all of those things occur? Certainly, all of those things occur; no one would say that all Protestant pastors have seminary and likewise no one would say that none of them do. In any case, who does the selecting? The individual churches, of course, choose their pastors. In some cases, the former pastor will choose a new pastor and so on. But in the end, if the church is discontented with the pastor, whether he has seminary or not they will eject him from their employ. And if the people do not have the power to eject him they will leave and go to another Church.
So, I must ask the question again, who does the choosing? It is the people who choose. Further, having seminary might be a means of more directly gaining employment as a pastor, but it is not usually a factor in whether or not a pastor keeps his position. Ergo, if a man without seminary finds himself employed as the pastor of a protestant community, his having seminary on his resume is not going to be a factor of whether or not he remains the pastor. Therefore, there is no real advantage to seminary beyond gaining employment. What matters is the people's opinion of the man.
This I find extremely strange. When a man goes to receive his doctorate in the medical arts, he does not go before a board of nurses, but instead he goes before a board of medical doctors. Or if a person went to receive a license of any kind, don't we all know that they must receive the license from someone else so licensed? Whoever obtains a drivers license must obtain the license from someone who can drive, and whoever obtains a license for gun ownership must obtain it from someone apt in teaching the laws concerning ownership. Therefore, the person without seminary who claims themselves a pastor is like a person who claims to license themselves.
Also, if the community decides that he is to be a pastor, I find this even more strange. The ignorant are commissioning a teacher as though they are qualified to do so! A person is a teacher because they are apt in knowledge, the pupil is the pupil because he is ignorant of what the teacher teaches. If the pupil is ignorant of what he will be taught, then it follows necessarily that he is ignorant of what he needs to be taught, who knows it, and who is able to teach it. Imagine, that we took a rhetorician, whose task it is to convince through routine the ignorant of whatever he pleases, and placed him in with eight doctors. Let us further say that we placed them before a crowd of average people. Whom do you suppose the ignorant mass of people will say is the best of the doctors? It is certain they will say the man who speaks the best is the best doctor. They have no objective way of gauging the excellence of the doctors, because they are ignorant of the art. It is for the very reason of their ignorance that they need a doctor!
So, having selected the rhetorician to be their doctor, do you suppose they will enjoy many benefits because of this? Do you suppose that they will enjoy great health by him? No, they certainly will not. And so we know that not only are the people ill equipped to select good teachers for themselves because of their ignorance, but that they have even less business choosing a teacher from amongst their ignorant fellows. The person without seminary has no business in either case, whether he chooses himself or is chosen by his fellows, to be a pastor.
Now, concerning the man who has been to seminary, let us examine. If we went to a doctor and became dissatisfied with him and demanded his license to be revoked, how would we go about this? We would take him to court and lawyers would go find his peers, true doctors, and his practice would be examined. If his peers found that he was guilty of malpractice then he would surely be punished to the fullest extent possible. We would not simply strip him of his license and rights because a rabble of discontented folk, ignorant in medicine, brought an accusation against him. Never!
Likewise, if we find that a doctor is guilty of malpractice, but the patients love him and make many excuses for him will this in anyway prevent the law from delivering what it must, namely, justice? Will pathetic pleas and stories of how great and faithful a family doctor he was save him from the fact of his malpractice of medicine? No, never! He will be striped of his license and prevented from practicing medicine wherever the law can prohibit it and fines and possibly imprisonment will follow.
In this way, the doctor is aloof from the ignorance of his patients. When he is a good doctor and they are bad patients he is safe and secure in his position and they still have recourse to him because he provides to them what they cannot provide to themselves. When he is a bad doctor, the ignorant nostalgia and favoritism of his patients will not save him and he will no longer be allowed to misapply the art of medical science. The doctor is established by his peers and knowledge which no man takes away.
It should be the same with pastors. However, as our inquiry has revealed, this is not the case. Ordained ministers find themselves a congregation of one if they do not do as the ignorant require. The ordained minister is not protected from the ignorance of his people at all. He must be careful not to hurt them, even if he must; he must be careful to entertain them and conform to their expectations. If he doesn't they will abandon him or eject him from employment. If at any time they become discontented with the ordained minister, they will prefer the unordained man who knows how to tickle their ears, to him.
And how can we be sure of this? Which would children prefer, the teacher who teaches or the teacher who gives them games? The one who gives them games. And which do the children prefer to listen to, a block of instruction, or a story? A story. And which one will the people rather encounter, a police officer who is lax or one who delivers justice? The officer who is lax. And I could continue on this way, ad infinitum.
We can, therefore, confidently know which man the congregation will prefer. So, what Protestants posses is democracy, which is the worst form of government. Democracy descends into despotism, because mob always gives birth to a tyrant. Democracy always murders itself and chooses the wrong instead of the good. It is short sighted, selfish, ignorant, anarchic. In this "democratic Christianity" that Protestants possess who is in charge? Obviously, the same people who are in charge in all democracies, man in general. I can devise of no other form of government which is more dissimilar to monarchy than democracy. Where is the singular rule of Apostolic authority? Where is Christ the king? How ironic that they accuse the Catholic Church of being an organization of men, when they have democracy. Their communities simply could not be more man-made. You begin to see why I said I don't think that Protestants have given any real thought to their position on the Catholic religion.
But we should hold right here, because here we find that the Protestants have been consistent in one thing: they asserted that the whole community of faith has a refining effect on the Christian. This keeps with their democratic attitude. And I'm certain that when I said," Where is Christ the king?" some of you were saying," He is in all of us!" So, Protestants claim then, that they whole community of faith has a refining effect on the Christian. Then, you have only to shut off from the outside world and make your communities exclusive and you will be excellent. But what does history tell us about such experiments? I think that the Puritans are sufficient evidence that this is not true, witch trials and all.
Protestants claim that because they have the holy Spirit, the bible, and have Jesus in their hearts, that they all have a refining effect upon one another. But what about health, because the business of the church primarily is the health of the soul, or as the Protestants like to say, the spirit? So, what about other kinds of health? What of mental health? Do all people have a refining effect on the health of the mind, or do only some people have a positive effect on the mind? And bodily health, too; do all people have a positive effect on the health of the body, or only a few people? Obviously, only a few people do good to these and the rest do damage or nothing.
And what about people who live in houses, do they all know how to build houses because they possess them? Or people who drive cars, do they know how to make them, because they own them? Or people with tumors, do they know how to treat them because they possess them? No, only a few know how. But here, then, the Protestant stands confuted with his mouth open, because it is obvious even to children that there is no way that everyone has a refining effect, but rather that only a few have this effect. So, the democratic nature of Protestant Christianity is necessarily counter-intuitive to the end of religion, just as it would be counter-intuitive to bodily health if suddenly everyone claimed to be a surgeon.
If they understand this, why are they doing this?
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)