I thought this section of the Roman Catholic Catechism was fascinating...
______________
I. The Universal Destination and the Private Ownership of Goods
2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. the appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.
2403 The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself." The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.
2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.
2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.
II. Respect for Persons and Their Goods
2407 In economic matters, respect for human dignity requires the practice of the virtue of temperance, so as to moderate attachment to this world's goods; the practice of the virtue of justice, to preserve our neighbor's rights and render him what is his due; and the practice of solidarity, in accordance with the golden rule and in keeping with the generosity of the Lord, who "though he was rich, yet for your sake . . . became poor so that by his poverty, you might become rich."
Respect for the goods of others
2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.
2409 Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.
The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation...
Showing posts with label Roman Catholic catechism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roman Catholic catechism. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Catholic Catechism 5: The Church, Resurrection
Continuing my take-away from our Monday reading group going through the Roman Catholic Catechism to compare it with Wesleyan theology:
Week 1: Introduction and Revelation
Week 2: God the Father
Week 3: Jesus' Birth, Life, Death
Week 4: Resurrection, Spirit, Church
This week's reading of the catechism was over Section 2, chapter 3, articles 9.3 through 11. This is over the beginning of the third section of the Apostle's creed. "I believe in the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body..."
______________
Interestingly, as we get to the section of the creed on the church, the number of points where Wesleyans (and pretty much all non-Roman Catholics) disagree really spiked. Up to this point, there really has been very little Wesleyans would disagree with. We agree on who God is and who Christ is. There is even much in common on Scripture.
There is still much we agree on in this section, but all the points where there have been disagreements so far pretty much show up again in the reading this week.
1. Obviously, RC beliefs on the Pope are going to show up in a section of the catechism on the Church. They believe the Pope is in a direct line going back to Peter as the first bishop of Rome and as the one to whom Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom. Then there are the bishops.
This identity-giving story not only has historical problems but all non-RCatholics would reject its implications as well. Peter probably was the chief apostle, but from James to Paul this was not seen as giving him any kind of ultimate authority. The churches (plural early on) at Rome were not at all likely founded initially by Peter. The church (singular later) of Rome was not pre-eminent among the early churches until the years after Constantine. It was then "first among equals" until 1024, when the Eastern church left its fellowship.
The long and short of it is that Wesleyans, along with other Protestants, do not believe the Pope and the bishops of the RCC possess any special authority within Christendom, certainly not infallibility. They are Christians like any other Christian, and they may have wisdom/insight like any other Christian. Having said that, the RC catechism is generous in the sense that it admits "both sides" were to blame in the many schisms of Christian history, which must refer chiefly to the split between East and West and the Protestant Reformation.
2. At the same time, we find articulated in this section of the catechism what we might call its sense of what we might call "separated brethren." Those who have been baptized in other churches can be called Christians. This was a major improvement in RC understanding that came through at Vatican II. Under the current Pope I fear there may be some pulling back from what has been an excellent trajectory for the RCC.
We do find in this section a possibility with which many Wesleyans are sympathetic, namely, that God may receive some humanity that has either not heard of Christ or that has heard of him inadequately.
3. Following the old dictum, "there is no salvation outside the Church," this section has a strong sense of the Church as the channel of God's grace. The RCC obviously also has a strongly visible sense of the Church. The Church is certainly visible in the sense of it consisting of visible people who gather together each week, but its membership for us is invisible for Wesleyans and doesn't correspond to any visible group.
Yes, God certainly dispenses grace through visible churches in community with each other, but we would much more point to the Spirit as the ultimate mechanism of grace. And we believe the Spirit can meet you individually apart from the Church.
4. The RCC certainly makes a stronger distinction between ordination and laity than the WC would. Having said that, this section of the catechism has a very strong view of the laity as co-participants in the mission of God and the Church. The RCC even has "orders" for the laity.
But, for example, Wesleyans would not insist that the elements of communion must be consecrated by a minister. We strongly prefer it, but it is not an absolute for us. We don't believe in apostolic succession in a historic sense, but we do within our church require that a minister be ordained by the church. We don't see pastors as rulers of churches, as the RCs do. In fact, we require an equal representation of lay and minister at our legislative conferences.
In my opinion, there have always been in church history, including the early church, two channels of authority and spiritual insight. There is the normal, the institutional. There is a line of conferred authority. But there have also always been the prophets, those whom God raises from anywhere. Apostolic succession is fine for the normal, but God is not constrained.
5. The RC catechism does not envision the possibility that a human might live without sinning in this world. Wesleyans may have a different definition of sin, but historically have believed that a person might live without intentionally sinning "with a high hand," with clear intention to sin. Having said that, there was a section on love as the goal that easily could have been written by John Wesley.
6. Following the New Testament, Wesleyans believe all Christians are saints. We don't believe that saints are Christians with more merit than sin nor do we believe one believer can share his or her merit with others. We do not tend to look at the dead as intercessors for us. We do not put Mary in a special spiritual category or tend to believe she intercedes for us.
Week 1: Introduction and Revelation
Week 2: God the Father
Week 3: Jesus' Birth, Life, Death
Week 4: Resurrection, Spirit, Church
This week's reading of the catechism was over Section 2, chapter 3, articles 9.3 through 11. This is over the beginning of the third section of the Apostle's creed. "I believe in the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body..."
______________
Interestingly, as we get to the section of the creed on the church, the number of points where Wesleyans (and pretty much all non-Roman Catholics) disagree really spiked. Up to this point, there really has been very little Wesleyans would disagree with. We agree on who God is and who Christ is. There is even much in common on Scripture.
There is still much we agree on in this section, but all the points where there have been disagreements so far pretty much show up again in the reading this week.
1. Obviously, RC beliefs on the Pope are going to show up in a section of the catechism on the Church. They believe the Pope is in a direct line going back to Peter as the first bishop of Rome and as the one to whom Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom. Then there are the bishops.
This identity-giving story not only has historical problems but all non-RCatholics would reject its implications as well. Peter probably was the chief apostle, but from James to Paul this was not seen as giving him any kind of ultimate authority. The churches (plural early on) at Rome were not at all likely founded initially by Peter. The church (singular later) of Rome was not pre-eminent among the early churches until the years after Constantine. It was then "first among equals" until 1024, when the Eastern church left its fellowship.
The long and short of it is that Wesleyans, along with other Protestants, do not believe the Pope and the bishops of the RCC possess any special authority within Christendom, certainly not infallibility. They are Christians like any other Christian, and they may have wisdom/insight like any other Christian. Having said that, the RC catechism is generous in the sense that it admits "both sides" were to blame in the many schisms of Christian history, which must refer chiefly to the split between East and West and the Protestant Reformation.
2. At the same time, we find articulated in this section of the catechism what we might call its sense of what we might call "separated brethren." Those who have been baptized in other churches can be called Christians. This was a major improvement in RC understanding that came through at Vatican II. Under the current Pope I fear there may be some pulling back from what has been an excellent trajectory for the RCC.
We do find in this section a possibility with which many Wesleyans are sympathetic, namely, that God may receive some humanity that has either not heard of Christ or that has heard of him inadequately.
3. Following the old dictum, "there is no salvation outside the Church," this section has a strong sense of the Church as the channel of God's grace. The RCC obviously also has a strongly visible sense of the Church. The Church is certainly visible in the sense of it consisting of visible people who gather together each week, but its membership for us is invisible for Wesleyans and doesn't correspond to any visible group.
Yes, God certainly dispenses grace through visible churches in community with each other, but we would much more point to the Spirit as the ultimate mechanism of grace. And we believe the Spirit can meet you individually apart from the Church.
4. The RCC certainly makes a stronger distinction between ordination and laity than the WC would. Having said that, this section of the catechism has a very strong view of the laity as co-participants in the mission of God and the Church. The RCC even has "orders" for the laity.
But, for example, Wesleyans would not insist that the elements of communion must be consecrated by a minister. We strongly prefer it, but it is not an absolute for us. We don't believe in apostolic succession in a historic sense, but we do within our church require that a minister be ordained by the church. We don't see pastors as rulers of churches, as the RCs do. In fact, we require an equal representation of lay and minister at our legislative conferences.
In my opinion, there have always been in church history, including the early church, two channels of authority and spiritual insight. There is the normal, the institutional. There is a line of conferred authority. But there have also always been the prophets, those whom God raises from anywhere. Apostolic succession is fine for the normal, but God is not constrained.
5. The RC catechism does not envision the possibility that a human might live without sinning in this world. Wesleyans may have a different definition of sin, but historically have believed that a person might live without intentionally sinning "with a high hand," with clear intention to sin. Having said that, there was a section on love as the goal that easily could have been written by John Wesley.
6. Following the New Testament, Wesleyans believe all Christians are saints. We don't believe that saints are Christians with more merit than sin nor do we believe one believer can share his or her merit with others. We do not tend to look at the dead as intercessors for us. We do not put Mary in a special spiritual category or tend to believe she intercedes for us.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Catholic Catechism 4: Resurrection, Spirit, Church
Continuing my take-away from our Monday reading group going through the Roman Catholic Catechism to compare it with Wesleyan theology:
Week 1: Introduction and Revelation
Week 2: God the Father
Week 3: Jesus' Birth, Life, Death
This week's reading of the catechism was over Part 1, Section 2, chapter 2, articles 5-9. This is over Jesus' resurrection, exaltation, as well as the beginning of the third part of the Apostle's Creed relating to the Spirit and the Church.
_______________
1. Keith Drury remarked that if Wesleyans had a catechism this long and filled in all the blanks, we might be definite on a long of things that aren't very central. For example, you will not find any Wesleyan position on what Jesus did in between his death and resurrection. I am fine with saying "he descended to the dead" in the Apostle's Creed, but would rather not say much more.
Of course I'm not too fond of the frequently heard Calvinist sense that he partook of the punishment of hell, "he descended to hell" in the punitive sense. But I have no need, as the RC catechism does to distinguish between hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. According to the catechism, it was apparently Paradise to which Christ descended, the place where the OT saints had gone.
This is a possible way of interpreting a few biblical texts, but not something I would be too concerned to spell out.
2. The catechism makes it clear that Christ's resurrection was literal and physical, not metaphorical or spiritual.
3. Jesus' literal return to earth at some point in the future is also declared. It actually sounds like it teaches that ethnic Israel will turn to Christ at his return. In fact, it almost sounds pre-millennial, with mention of an Antichrist and a final trial. I'm very happy that the Wesleyan Church intentionally does not take a position on how the end will come, except for a general belief in the second coming.
4. Wesleyans often associate baptism with new birth but not in as close a way as RCatholics do. A person might experience new birth before or after baptism. Indeed, a person might never be baptized and experience new birth. If a Wesleyan were to have a child baptized, it would appropriate the symbolism of inclusion without associating the baptism with new birth. I should note that while I am using the language of symbolism, Wesleyans do consider baptism a sacrament and thus a means of grace, which is something more than a mere symbol.
5. Wesleyans do not associate the revelation of the Holy Spirit with the RCatholic Magisterium or in much of its sacramental liturgy, although we believe it is possible that the Spirit might speak at times through them, just as he can speak through anything.
6. Wesleyans generally do not think of Confirmation as a sacrament, although certainly we do not have a problem with catechetical discipleship or that God can use it as a means of grace. This section at one point mentions the "seven" sacraments. Wesleyans really only believe in two, although we believe God can use anything he wants as a means of grace, so he could use the other 5 if he wanted to on some occasion.
7. A lot of material on the way God works and then the anticipation of Christ in the OT that Wesleyans wouldn't have a problem with. Wesleyans wouldn't have a problem with most of what the catechism says about the Holy Spirit.
8. Wesleyans don't have a problem with the Church being "one," "holy," and "apostolic." There is almost nothing in this section on the church to which a Wesleyan would object, except perhaps one side comment on Mary, since Wesleyans would not consider Mary to be without sin.
So, out of 43 pages, there were two or three tangential comments we would disagree with. The rest is pretty much common ground.
Week 1: Introduction and Revelation
Week 2: God the Father
Week 3: Jesus' Birth, Life, Death
This week's reading of the catechism was over Part 1, Section 2, chapter 2, articles 5-9. This is over Jesus' resurrection, exaltation, as well as the beginning of the third part of the Apostle's Creed relating to the Spirit and the Church.
_______________
1. Keith Drury remarked that if Wesleyans had a catechism this long and filled in all the blanks, we might be definite on a long of things that aren't very central. For example, you will not find any Wesleyan position on what Jesus did in between his death and resurrection. I am fine with saying "he descended to the dead" in the Apostle's Creed, but would rather not say much more.
Of course I'm not too fond of the frequently heard Calvinist sense that he partook of the punishment of hell, "he descended to hell" in the punitive sense. But I have no need, as the RC catechism does to distinguish between hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. According to the catechism, it was apparently Paradise to which Christ descended, the place where the OT saints had gone.
This is a possible way of interpreting a few biblical texts, but not something I would be too concerned to spell out.
2. The catechism makes it clear that Christ's resurrection was literal and physical, not metaphorical or spiritual.
3. Jesus' literal return to earth at some point in the future is also declared. It actually sounds like it teaches that ethnic Israel will turn to Christ at his return. In fact, it almost sounds pre-millennial, with mention of an Antichrist and a final trial. I'm very happy that the Wesleyan Church intentionally does not take a position on how the end will come, except for a general belief in the second coming.
4. Wesleyans often associate baptism with new birth but not in as close a way as RCatholics do. A person might experience new birth before or after baptism. Indeed, a person might never be baptized and experience new birth. If a Wesleyan were to have a child baptized, it would appropriate the symbolism of inclusion without associating the baptism with new birth. I should note that while I am using the language of symbolism, Wesleyans do consider baptism a sacrament and thus a means of grace, which is something more than a mere symbol.
5. Wesleyans do not associate the revelation of the Holy Spirit with the RCatholic Magisterium or in much of its sacramental liturgy, although we believe it is possible that the Spirit might speak at times through them, just as he can speak through anything.
6. Wesleyans generally do not think of Confirmation as a sacrament, although certainly we do not have a problem with catechetical discipleship or that God can use it as a means of grace. This section at one point mentions the "seven" sacraments. Wesleyans really only believe in two, although we believe God can use anything he wants as a means of grace, so he could use the other 5 if he wanted to on some occasion.
7. A lot of material on the way God works and then the anticipation of Christ in the OT that Wesleyans wouldn't have a problem with. Wesleyans wouldn't have a problem with most of what the catechism says about the Holy Spirit.
8. Wesleyans don't have a problem with the Church being "one," "holy," and "apostolic." There is almost nothing in this section on the church to which a Wesleyan would object, except perhaps one side comment on Mary, since Wesleyans would not consider Mary to be without sin.
So, out of 43 pages, there were two or three tangential comments we would disagree with. The rest is pretty much common ground.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Catholic Catechism 3: Jesus' Birth, Life, Death
Continuing my take-away from our Monday reading group going through the Roman Catholic Catechism to compare it with Wesleyan theology:
Week 1: Introduction and Revelation
Week 2: God the Father
This week's reading of the catechism was over Part 1, Section 2, chapter 2, articles 1-4. This is over most of the second part of the Apostle's Creed, through Jesus' death.
_________________
Most of this section is common Christianity. There's also some pretty good biblical scholarship that felt very familiar to me. My real transition toward scholarship took place in the late 80s and early 90s. I guess the Catechism was written in the 80s, so the approach to Christ that focused on titles was popular. Think James Dunn's Christology in the Making.
This chapter sets out the doctrine of Christ held by all orthodox Christians, claims that steer away from the classic heresies. Jesus was fully and truly human, so no Docetism. Jesus was not two persons joined together, so no Nestorianism. But Jesus had both a human and a divine nature, so no Monophytism. He had a genuine human will despite having a divine will as well, so no Monothelitism. Jesus wasn't a physical body with a divine soul, so no Apollinarianism.
Most of the theories of atonement are here. There is Jesus' death as a sacrifice and satisfaction. There is Jesus' death as a substitution. There is Jesus' life as a moral example. The Catechism even interprets Jesus' fulfillment of the Law as him keeping the Law perfectly, which isn't what Matthew 5 means in my opinion. Matthew 5:17 is interpreted by the examples in the rest of the chapter. Fulfilling the law is playing it out in the light of the love command, being complete like our heavenly Fathers is complete (5:48). Going the whole way, not just half way.
There are of course some elements that are weird to Protestants. Once you understand it, we don't have a problem with calling Mary the "Mother of God." It simply means that Jesus was always God, even in the womb (so no adoptionism). But the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary will be weird to most Protestants--the idea that even throughout the birth process her physical virginity remained intact. Protestants feel free to interpret the New Testament in its most natural sense, namely, that Mary went on to have more children that were Jesus' biological brothers and sisters.
Our group suspected that the RCatholic aversion to Mary having sex was similar to the way some Protestants feel about Jesus having a wife, that having sex would somehow make Jesus less pure or perfect. It's a "sex is dirty" subconscious thing. But since having sex isn't dirty in the slightest, there's no need for Mary to remain a virgin forever, even if she were without sin, which Protestants generally don't believe either. Also, we don't say Hail Marys, although we occasionally like them in football.
The tradition that Peter was specifically the rock of the church is also not crucial for Protestants. We are free to follow the historical evidence wherever it lies, which is that the church at Rome was likely there decades before Paul, let alone Peter ever got there. Having said that, I am sympathetic to the suggestion of Brown and Meier that Roman Christianity may have been more "Petrine" in flavor than "Pauline." They are Roman Catholic New Testament scholars. If Hebrews was written to Rome, it along with Romans supports this theory.
But despite these minor exceptions, the overwhelming majority of these 70 pages or so was pretty much the same as what Wesleyans and Protestants believe. We're even celebrating Advent more and more, and I preached an Epiphany sermon once at a Wesleyan Church on the text of the wise men, so we can check that one off the list...
Week 1: Introduction and Revelation
Week 2: God the Father
This week's reading of the catechism was over Part 1, Section 2, chapter 2, articles 1-4. This is over most of the second part of the Apostle's Creed, through Jesus' death.
_________________
Most of this section is common Christianity. There's also some pretty good biblical scholarship that felt very familiar to me. My real transition toward scholarship took place in the late 80s and early 90s. I guess the Catechism was written in the 80s, so the approach to Christ that focused on titles was popular. Think James Dunn's Christology in the Making.
This chapter sets out the doctrine of Christ held by all orthodox Christians, claims that steer away from the classic heresies. Jesus was fully and truly human, so no Docetism. Jesus was not two persons joined together, so no Nestorianism. But Jesus had both a human and a divine nature, so no Monophytism. He had a genuine human will despite having a divine will as well, so no Monothelitism. Jesus wasn't a physical body with a divine soul, so no Apollinarianism.
Most of the theories of atonement are here. There is Jesus' death as a sacrifice and satisfaction. There is Jesus' death as a substitution. There is Jesus' life as a moral example. The Catechism even interprets Jesus' fulfillment of the Law as him keeping the Law perfectly, which isn't what Matthew 5 means in my opinion. Matthew 5:17 is interpreted by the examples in the rest of the chapter. Fulfilling the law is playing it out in the light of the love command, being complete like our heavenly Fathers is complete (5:48). Going the whole way, not just half way.
There are of course some elements that are weird to Protestants. Once you understand it, we don't have a problem with calling Mary the "Mother of God." It simply means that Jesus was always God, even in the womb (so no adoptionism). But the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary will be weird to most Protestants--the idea that even throughout the birth process her physical virginity remained intact. Protestants feel free to interpret the New Testament in its most natural sense, namely, that Mary went on to have more children that were Jesus' biological brothers and sisters.
Our group suspected that the RCatholic aversion to Mary having sex was similar to the way some Protestants feel about Jesus having a wife, that having sex would somehow make Jesus less pure or perfect. It's a "sex is dirty" subconscious thing. But since having sex isn't dirty in the slightest, there's no need for Mary to remain a virgin forever, even if she were without sin, which Protestants generally don't believe either. Also, we don't say Hail Marys, although we occasionally like them in football.
The tradition that Peter was specifically the rock of the church is also not crucial for Protestants. We are free to follow the historical evidence wherever it lies, which is that the church at Rome was likely there decades before Paul, let alone Peter ever got there. Having said that, I am sympathetic to the suggestion of Brown and Meier that Roman Christianity may have been more "Petrine" in flavor than "Pauline." They are Roman Catholic New Testament scholars. If Hebrews was written to Rome, it along with Romans supports this theory.
But despite these minor exceptions, the overwhelming majority of these 70 pages or so was pretty much the same as what Wesleyans and Protestants believe. We're even celebrating Advent more and more, and I preached an Epiphany sermon once at a Wesleyan Church on the text of the wise men, so we can check that one off the list...
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Catholic Catechism 2: God, Creation, Sin
Continuing my take-away from our Monday reading group going through the Roman Catholic Catechism to compare it with Wesleyan theology:
Week 1: Introduction and Revelation
This week's reading of the catechism was over Part 1, Section 2, chapter 1. This is over the first line of the Apostle's Creed: "I believe in God the Father."
I once again didn't see much in this section of 58 pages that stood out to me as horrendously problematic for Wesleyan theology. We would consider a few things strange. But in general, Roman Catholics would more have a problem with us than we with them. Here are some notes.
1. For the bulk of this section, Wesleyans would either strongly agree or not really care. For example, Wesleyans accept the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds (although not necessarily the anathemas at the end, 192-94). Wesleyans believe in the Trinity (232-67). Wesleyans believe that God's nature is love (221).
2. To be sure, a Wesleyan who quoted 2 Maccabees in defense of creation out of nothing would get a strange look. But Wesleyans do believe God created the world out of nothing. I actually don't think we have a clear statement on the topic, but I don't know any Wesleyans who don't think so, if they've even asked the question.
3. Wesleyans don't venerate angels (352). We don't think a lot about their names or ranks, by and large. As a reminder, veneration is not the same as worship for Roman Catholics. I suppose if a Wesleyan venerated angels, we would think they were weird and a little out of kilter.
4. Wesleyans don't have a dog in the filioque debate over which East and West divided (246). RCatholics believe the Spirit proceeds from the the Father and the Son, while the Orthodox believe the Spirit comes from the Father. Most Wesleyans have never even heard of the debate.
Indeed, there is both a blessing and a curse that I grew up with almost no sense of these Christian debates. The blessing was that I at least think I was less encumbered when studying the Bible to listen to it on its own terms. Wesleyans, for good or ill, have a lot of the Baptist "freedom of conscience" in their blood. The curse is of course that Wesleyans are probably "soft heretics" on a lot of issues without realizing it ;-) ... and susceptible to foreign influences.
5. One such issue is the question of free will. In practice, most Wesleyans may be "Pelagians" or at least "soft Pelagians" without realizing it. Technically, Wesley believed in total depravity like Calvin and the Reformed, meaning that none of us can do any good at all in our own power, nor are we morally free in any way by nature. Roman Catholics, by contrast, don't believe in total depravity.
However, RCatholics and Wesleyans have the same view practically in terms of how freedom ends up. Roman Catholics officially believe that original righteousness, something God added as a gift to original humanity (donum superadditum), was lost in the Fall, but that humanity remained partially free by nature. Wesleyans believe that, although we are technically depraved entirely by nature, God's prevenient grace empowers humanity to be able to "sign up" for more grace. We thus end up having free will.
Thus in the end, Wesleyans end up with the Catholics as "synergists," individuals who believe that human will and divine will work together toward moral choices. While we are closer to Calvinists in what's under the hood (in using the language of total depravity), when you close the hood the car looks far more like the RCatholics than the Calvinists on this question. Like I said, most Wesleyans in our history have pretty much looked like Roman Catholics on this issue.
By the way, my sense of Paul is that it is not human nature that is fallen but that the world as a whole--and the flesh which is a part of the world--is under the power of Sin since Adam. We thus do not sin genetically or naturally but because our flesh is weak and in our default situation we lack the power to overcome temptation. The Spirit, by contrast, gives us the power to overcome the power of Sin.
6. Most Wesleyans would look at you strange if you articulated even a Methodist view of original sin in relation to baptism. Methodists, along with the RCC, see infant baptism as cleansing the original sin of Adam. Wesleyans functionally don't associate any guilt or need for cleansing on our part because of Adam's sin.
7. Most Wesleyans also don't care whether you believe the soul is created at birth (RCatholics) or whether the soul is passed down genetically (Wesley). Some Wesleyan thinkers are even willing to explore the possibility that the soul is somewhat of a metaphor for the part of us that transcends death. We thus don't have an official dog in that race. Most Wesleyans do take the idea of the soul literally, but we have no official position on the issue.
8. Wesleyans find the idea that the Virgin Mary was born without sin (immaculate conception) weird (411). We believe Jesus was without sin and wonder why, if Mary had to be without sin for Jesus to be without sin, then why didn't all the women back to Eve have to be without sin too. Surely the RCC has an answer but our group doesn't know it.
So Mary was really, really cool. We're okay with that. But if she stole some cookies as a child and had to ask forgiveness for it, we're okay with that being true too (not with her stealing them, mind you ;-).
Week 1: Introduction and Revelation
This week's reading of the catechism was over Part 1, Section 2, chapter 1. This is over the first line of the Apostle's Creed: "I believe in God the Father."
I once again didn't see much in this section of 58 pages that stood out to me as horrendously problematic for Wesleyan theology. We would consider a few things strange. But in general, Roman Catholics would more have a problem with us than we with them. Here are some notes.
1. For the bulk of this section, Wesleyans would either strongly agree or not really care. For example, Wesleyans accept the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds (although not necessarily the anathemas at the end, 192-94). Wesleyans believe in the Trinity (232-67). Wesleyans believe that God's nature is love (221).
2. To be sure, a Wesleyan who quoted 2 Maccabees in defense of creation out of nothing would get a strange look. But Wesleyans do believe God created the world out of nothing. I actually don't think we have a clear statement on the topic, but I don't know any Wesleyans who don't think so, if they've even asked the question.
3. Wesleyans don't venerate angels (352). We don't think a lot about their names or ranks, by and large. As a reminder, veneration is not the same as worship for Roman Catholics. I suppose if a Wesleyan venerated angels, we would think they were weird and a little out of kilter.
4. Wesleyans don't have a dog in the filioque debate over which East and West divided (246). RCatholics believe the Spirit proceeds from the the Father and the Son, while the Orthodox believe the Spirit comes from the Father. Most Wesleyans have never even heard of the debate.
Indeed, there is both a blessing and a curse that I grew up with almost no sense of these Christian debates. The blessing was that I at least think I was less encumbered when studying the Bible to listen to it on its own terms. Wesleyans, for good or ill, have a lot of the Baptist "freedom of conscience" in their blood. The curse is of course that Wesleyans are probably "soft heretics" on a lot of issues without realizing it ;-) ... and susceptible to foreign influences.
5. One such issue is the question of free will. In practice, most Wesleyans may be "Pelagians" or at least "soft Pelagians" without realizing it. Technically, Wesley believed in total depravity like Calvin and the Reformed, meaning that none of us can do any good at all in our own power, nor are we morally free in any way by nature. Roman Catholics, by contrast, don't believe in total depravity.
However, RCatholics and Wesleyans have the same view practically in terms of how freedom ends up. Roman Catholics officially believe that original righteousness, something God added as a gift to original humanity (donum superadditum), was lost in the Fall, but that humanity remained partially free by nature. Wesleyans believe that, although we are technically depraved entirely by nature, God's prevenient grace empowers humanity to be able to "sign up" for more grace. We thus end up having free will.
Thus in the end, Wesleyans end up with the Catholics as "synergists," individuals who believe that human will and divine will work together toward moral choices. While we are closer to Calvinists in what's under the hood (in using the language of total depravity), when you close the hood the car looks far more like the RCatholics than the Calvinists on this question. Like I said, most Wesleyans in our history have pretty much looked like Roman Catholics on this issue.
By the way, my sense of Paul is that it is not human nature that is fallen but that the world as a whole--and the flesh which is a part of the world--is under the power of Sin since Adam. We thus do not sin genetically or naturally but because our flesh is weak and in our default situation we lack the power to overcome temptation. The Spirit, by contrast, gives us the power to overcome the power of Sin.
6. Most Wesleyans would look at you strange if you articulated even a Methodist view of original sin in relation to baptism. Methodists, along with the RCC, see infant baptism as cleansing the original sin of Adam. Wesleyans functionally don't associate any guilt or need for cleansing on our part because of Adam's sin.
7. Most Wesleyans also don't care whether you believe the soul is created at birth (RCatholics) or whether the soul is passed down genetically (Wesley). Some Wesleyan thinkers are even willing to explore the possibility that the soul is somewhat of a metaphor for the part of us that transcends death. We thus don't have an official dog in that race. Most Wesleyans do take the idea of the soul literally, but we have no official position on the issue.
8. Wesleyans find the idea that the Virgin Mary was born without sin (immaculate conception) weird (411). We believe Jesus was without sin and wonder why, if Mary had to be without sin for Jesus to be without sin, then why didn't all the women back to Eve have to be without sin too. Surely the RCC has an answer but our group doesn't know it.
So Mary was really, really cool. We're okay with that. But if she stole some cookies as a child and had to ask forgiveness for it, we're okay with that being true too (not with her stealing them, mind you ;-).
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Roman Catholic Catechism 1
The notorious Monday reading group decided to read through selections of the Roman Catholic Catechism this semester with a very interesting question--just how different is Roman Catholic belief than Wesleyan? The hunch is that Wesleyans and Catholics agree on far more than most Wesleyans think. I'm not sure what will come of it, but it's possible that Keith Drury will take the collective take-away and make it public in some form. I don't want to distract from that, but I may post some of my own thoughts as we go through, trying not to distract from any final product that may come out of it.
Yesterday we read Section One of Part One (see the link above). Out of 47 pages, I only saw five disagreements, and I don't even consider most of these very significant (although they might be for a Roman Catholic, admittedly):
Yesterday we read Section One of Part One (see the link above). Out of 47 pages, I only saw five disagreements, and I don't even consider most of these very significant (although they might be for a Roman Catholic, admittedly):
- The Wesleyan tradition doesn't worry about apostolic succession (77), although Wesley would no doubt have preferred it.
- The Wesleyan tradition would not consider Scripture and Tradition of "equal" value (82), understanding that for RCatholics, Scripture is part of Tradition.
- We wouldn't ascribe any special privilege to the Pope or bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in interpreting the Bible (100), although they are free to work out their salvation with the rest of us ;-) To me, this is the most significant difference.
- Wesleyans don't consider the Apocrypha to be part of Scripture. It's not that we consider them evil. We just don't consider them Scripture.
- Wesleyans don't have anything against Mary, but don't generally think she remained a virgin after Jesus was born and don't have a dog in the race that sees her as the most perfect embodiment of the obedience of faith (148).
- I liked the fact that the purpose of doctrine was said to be love, not head knowledge for its own sake (25).
- I like the sense that Christ is the supreme Revelation of God and that the Revelation has been unpacking ever sense (65-66). Protestants and Catholics tend to disagree on the unpacking of that final Revelation. Protestants tend to see Scripture as a somewhat definitive unpacking of that Revelation. Catholics see big T "Tradition" as the unpacking of Christ, with Scripture as the fountainhead and beginning of that Tradition (see above).
- I like the openness to private revelation, with the distinction that it is not part of the "deposit of faith."
- What do you think about this??? "All that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures" (107).
- I enjoyed the four fold sense of Scripture, although it was made clear that spiritual senses don't contradict the literal (115-117). Of course many evangelicals insist on the literal or plain sense only, but the holiness tradition has generally been more open to "spiritual" readings, like charismatics and unlike mainstream Protestants.
- Faith is a "free assent" (150, 160), so Wesleyans are closer to Catholics on this one than they are to Calvinists.
- Faith is both a gift and a human act--human will and divine will cooperate (155). Again, Wesleyans are closer to Catholics on this one than to Calvinists.
- Faith is necessary for justification (161).
- I love this: "Faith is a personal act... But faith is not an isolated act" (166).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
