Those who have been to Europe know there isn’t a village, town or city that isn’t visible from a distance because of the spire ascending from the glorious cathedrals in the center of town. Majestic churches mark the landscape of Europe. My kids are wearying of waltzing through yet another old church. I’ve done my best to recall for them stuff I learned years ago in courses on the history of Christian architecture and symbolism. Many of the old churches have laser-sensored security alarms in front of paintings and relics because many of these things are made of gold and probably worth bookoo bucks as antique works of art. Each one is a museum to the past. With the exception of an advertisement to attend the Alpha Course in one church, I’ve yet to find much life.
Years ago a pastor colleague and I went to some meetings in downtown Cincinnati and, just because, we went to a Mass at the downtown Cathedral there. Speaking honestly I’ll confess service drained the life right out of me. However I looked over at him and he remarked… “this stuff is jazzes me all over, all your “God-is-my-buddy” songs on the guitar, you can have them… THIS is about the transcendence of God. O the awe of it.” Obviously there are some people hard-wired to find God in the high church setting just as there are others who better connect with him outdoors in the beauty of his creation. I took the rebuke to heart; back then we did lack a proper sense of the fear of the Lord. Interest side note though… a dozen years later, I’m still in ministry, my friend sells medical equipment. I have found Jesus to be a deep well and tradition to be more like a canteen that doesn’t take us very far.
This amazing altar décor is from the St. Michael’s Cathedral outside Salzburg Austria. You’ll need to look close at this picture to see where the subsequent blow up images in this post are taken from.
Those of you who’ve seen the Sound of Music may recognize that, in the movie, Maria married Georg von Trapp right here in this church. Everything in this picture is clearly visible in the movie. Every nook of this sanctuary is covered with brilliant gold and oil painted depictions of the saints, Mary and Jesus. There is a side chapel to worship Mary next to the altar, no Jesus in that room at all. Only intercessory candles to light before a 15 foot high blessed Virgin Mary. No place to sit either, only a kneeling altar before her.
The Reformation Churches here don’t get the visitor flow the Catholic churches do – probably because they are plain inside. Here’s a few reason why as spelled out in this second Zwingli book I’m trying to wade through (it’s a really tough read and I’m only halfway through.)
The “images” were said to be the Bible of the poor” encouraging devotion and instruction of the ignorant, but what these ignorant illiterate people made of them we cannot know… There was indeed a general conviction that the whole great company of the saints, depicted so strikingly as individuals, could, and did, plead before the Almighty on behalf of those on earth. In the hour of danger or anxiety, to call upon a saint might be to secure instant help or relief. A man looking into his church, as he ought to do, on his way to work in the fields, would probably gave upon a picture of a great giant St. Christopher staggering under the weight of the little Christ whole he carried over the river. This was thought to act as a kind of insurance ticket, and for that day the man was safe from harm or accident. Popular thought was permeated with expectation of the direct intervention in human affairs of the saints of heaven. To pray to the saint, in some sense to worship the saint, and so likewise his or her image, was an easy and natural transition. (pg. 92, Zwingli, G.R. Potter)
Zwingli preached there was only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. It would be wrong to call this teaching Zwinglian. He was just repeating what it says in the Bible. He preached that bowing before and praying to the saints was idolatrous. He preached Exodus 20:3-4, “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth below or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the Lord your God am a jealous God…”
I will share a few pictures here that I find a major distraction (at best) and defilement (at worst.)
Note the skulls and the dead “souls” trapped in purgatory with Mary presiding just above. I’ve spent a good deal of time in the past couple days reflecting on things like the common practice of burying the bishop inside the church. My kids really got weirded out when I suggested maybe we should bury me someday in what is today the Church at the Gate baptistry. God had rules about keeping a distance from the defilement of dead bodies. Much to think about with regard to all this and those of you who are taking the time to read this I welcome to chime in with your thoughts.
Here’s what my Zwingli book has to say about purgatory:
The Christian revelation was simple: there was heaven and hell, nothing more. For an intermediate state there was neither evidence nor need; salvation through Christ was by God’s grace and mercy; could man come to God through purgatory there was no need for the life and death of Jesus. (p. 123, Zwingli, G.R. Potter)
Zwingli’s more zealous followers, not him personally (he did things orderly), had the churches “cleansed” of the idolatry. The outcome of this cleansing was the elimination of altars – in many places pictures and statues were spontaneously removed by “zealous individuals” – glass windows broken, superstitious objects burnt. (Zwingli himself tried to prevent the destruction of stained glass windows. I was glad to read this as I’m a big fan of stained glass – and can’t wait til we get the stained glass window in the CATG prayer room. Funny memory… we went to a church service once when Kaitlyn was about five, she stood speechless before the stained glass windows. We realized that though she’d never missed a Sunday in church, she’d only been in new churches that meet in high school gyms.) And, so, even though he didn’t tolerate the vandalism, Zwingli’s teaching was clear… the images hindered the direct access of the individual soul to God; they were at best vain distractions, at worst they encouraged idolatry. Money offered to the image of a shrine would be much better given to the poor.
Zwingli’s teaching had far reaching implications – “no purgatory, no indulgences. Masses offered, even prayers said, for the souls of the departed, paid for by relatives and others, were worthless, and the money could be put to better use.”
Instead of standing in judgment over these striking Cathedrals, I have tried to just stay focused on the theme of idolatry and examine my own heart to see where it was present. I’m thankful we can go directly to Jesus.
“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God… let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” (Hebrews 4:14, 16
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 26, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Blake
Neat pictures, but a few responses from a vile Papist:
1. Catholics don’t worship Mary. Catholics tier such matters out pretty rigorously, and Mary warrants devotion, not adoration. As Mary herself states in Luke, “All generations will call me blessed,” and devotion to Mary is ancient enough that there are several ancient legends and beliefs related to her (the Eastern Orthodox Church believes in a Dormition of Mary; that is, they believe she fell asleep rather than dying). Marian devotion is believed to help foster greater adoration of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and Mary herself is seen as the ideal female role model (useful when half of all people are women). Not surprisingly, this has given her great status in the Church, but it’s still more comparable to figures like St. Paul than to Jesus.
2. Purgatory emerges from two places. First, in Maccabees (used only by Catholics, but that’s a different argument) the Jews under Judas Maccabeus pray for their dead, explicitly so that they may be delivered from sin. Additionally, the New Testament states that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come, suggesting that some sins may only be forgiven in the next age.
3. If statues are idols, I don’t see how stained glass windows are any different.
4. The idea of money spent on shrines going to the poor recalls the scene in the Gospels where Mary anoints Jesus’ feet with perfume. Jesus does not condemn her, and the message clearly is that praising God with beautiful things is not wrong.
5. I’m not sure why the ability to access God matters so much to Zwingli. If I recall correctly, he was a Calvinist who believed in predestination. Why does it matter how we reach God if our status as saved or unsaved is predetermined?
6. If Catholic icons, pictures, and the like are idols and to be rejected, shouldn’t all pictures or images be treated likewise? Such a stance is not without precedent; medieval Islamic art typically would not depict any living thing.
June 27, 2009 at 1:55 am
Steve Hickey
Blake
I don’t see you as a vile papist – I know Many Catholics today who, like you, see Jesus as the only path to salvation, not Mary or the Church. But also many Catholics don’t tier such matters out rigorously as you state. I’ve been to Latin America a couple times – Mary worship there dominates the landscape of the Church. I felt led to put up this post because I’m seeing here in the historical imprint that remains and it provides an opportunity to rehash some reformation history which we all need a refresher on. Many protestant churches today are sorely in need of reform. I’m hoping to glean reformation principles here. And I happen to be here in the heart of the Catholic/Reformation contentions. I haven’t been to Rome, I’m afraid I’d get sick honestly if it is anything like what I saw in the city of Jerusalem in terms of people bowing before everything but Jesus.
Mary IS worshipped in rooms set aside to her alone. She is viewed by many as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. I understand there are many pushing pope Benedict XVI to declare a fifth Marian dogma and that the petition urges the Pope to proclaim Mary “the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity, the co-redemptrix with Jesus the redeemer, mediatrix of all graces with Jesus the one mediator, and advocate with Jesus Christ on behalf of the human race.”
There isn’t a shred in the Scripture to support any of it. The verse you sight telling us she is blessed among women means she is worthy of respect that’s all. The verse you site about Mary anointing Jesus feet is good yet what I’m seeing is people not at Jesus’ feet with costly worship (which is good). I’m seeing people at the feet of Mary and Saints, and, at least in Zwingli’s time, buying forgiveness… some even weighing whether or not to sin by how much it would cost them to buy forgiveness.
On purgatory, I’m aware of Maccabean (extra-Biblical) origin outside the Bible. The sin against the Spirit verse, in my view, doesn’t even remotely support purgatory. If that is the only support for it, I view it even more as a central Catholic doctrine on an extremely weak (even non-existent) foundation. Zwingli argued that purgatory doctrine was developed to pay for St. Peter’s cathedral – a genius and manipulative fundraising scheme – sell indulgences to free a dead relative from purgatory – “when a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs” was the phrase of that day. St. Peter’s in Rome was built with this money.
Zwingli wasn’t a Calvinist. To be historically precise, Calvin was six years old when Zwingli started his reformation preaching. Zwingli was dead for one year when Calvin assumed his pastorate in Geneva. They never met. (Many are surprised to learn that Zwingli and Luther didn’t cross paths either except in one debate where they disagreed so profoundly Luther wouldn’t shake his hand afterward.) But your point is on Calvin and predestination. (I’m not a Calvinist BTW, especially on predestination.) But Calvin wasn’t a Calvinist on predestination either – those who followed him were dubbed Calvinists and they took his ideas much further than he would have tolerated. The Bible expressly uses the word “predestined” so yes Zwingli, Calvin, me and whoever else sees the Bible as the final authority are “predestinationists.” But even there, in relation to your point, predestination doesn’t mean we don’t aggressively reach out evangelistically to others with how to be saved just because God knows who will and won’t be saved. Maybe you are aware this is a massive theological debate.
You make a good point on there being a very thin line between statues and stained glass. Some believe “no graven image” means no likeness of any kind. I don’t. I see murals and stained glass as something very different than statues people knee before and light candles to. Stained glass tells the story. It doesn’t invite us to knee before images. The Bible expresses condemns communicating with and contacting the dead. Saints can be honored for lives of faithfulness, but to go them them, pray directly to them, is forbidden in Scripture.
I want to be careful to note my intention is to speak mainly about Catholic devotion in the 16th century and these reformers WITHIN the Catholic Church – Luther and Zwingli and Calvin. These guys were sons of the Catholic church, loved her and saw one universal church – Zwingli was never excommunicated. Over the centuries numerous reforms were underway WITHIN the Catholic Church. Brace yourself for more of my reflections on these things these next few weeks as I’ll surely have more to say on Calvin when we get to Geneva and more on Luther when I get up to Wittenburg. I don’t mean to offend you so if this stuff does, you may want to wait until after Aug 1 when I get back to revisit the blog. I welcome the dialog from all corners but it should be understood I’m not intending to write treatises here for consideration beyond my local congregation back home.
June 29, 2009 at 8:25 am
Bryce
Steve,
A few initial (and kind of general) thoughts: I’m glad you’ve qualified your commentary as applying to 16th-century Catholicism – which is, frankly, an easy target. In fact, the priests I am familiar with lay much of the blame for the entire schism on that era’s popes and priests.
The Church’s leadership patently failed to live and teach the Gospel. Many didn’t even try. The Renaissance Popes, specifically, were decadent, materialist, and begging for a popular backlash.
But it’s important to remember that one bad leader – and not even several bad leaders – poison an institution utterly, or negate God’s promises. For example, Israel did not cease to be God’s Chosen People simply because they had some despicable kings.
I certainly can’t speak for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. I’ve found that practicing Catholics always kind of laugh at the question, “How was Mass today?” It is always good, because Jesus Christ is always there.
However, I understand how a certain way of celebrating Mass could leave you cold. Some priests are skilled teachers and worship facilitators, and some are not. I think the Mass is like a brilliant musical score – it’s only fully appreciated and fulfilled when performed well by the musician (priest), and received well by the audience (congregation).
I certainly didn’t join the Roman Catholic Church because I was hard-wired for so-called “High Church.” If anything, I was at the opposite end of the spectrum – liturgy was anathema to me.
But I have discovered that Spirit-filled Liturgy within a reverent Catholic Mass is the most powerful public worship I’ve ever experienced. Some of the most “charismatic” Catholics I’ve come across are also fiercely devoted to the highest of High Church: The Latin Mass.
I can only speak from my own experience: the Catholic Church is a fantastically rich, deep, and full institution in which to worship Our Lord. And it has a historical memory unparalleled in the Body of Christ (although some Eastern Orthodox might dispute that statement).
I welcome discussions about the history of the Reformation and the Church, simply because history is directly relevant to the present. But I think all Christians – especially Catholics – waste too much time trying to defend or explain away every aspect of what their particular tradition did in the past.
Some of this is due to the fact that Catholics have an identifiable, coherent, institutionally contained history, in a way that no denomination does. (Some, I understand, would consider that a weakness, not a strength).
Non-denominational Christians have little trouble distancing themselves from, say, Luther’s Antisemitism, because, hey, he was just another Christian in the stream of history, like me.
But Catholics take – for example – allegations that Pius XII was anti-Semitic very seriously, because in the Catholic mind he was a Successor of St. Peter, and a direct spiritual predecessor of the current Pope, Benedict XVI. It’s more like defending a family member – maybe your Grandpa – against a slander campaign.
On the difficult issues of Mary, Purgatory/Indulgences, and the Communion of the Saints: I think many of the differences stem from different understandings of the nature of worship and prayer.
Catholics believe prayer is fundamentally “communication,” but not necessarily “worship.” Prayer can be worship, but not always. Protestants (generally) believe that to pray to someone/thing is fundamentally to worship. (More on Communion of the Saints, Purgatory, and the Bible, I hope, later, as time permits).
Thus, Catholics may pray to the Virgin Mary – and honor her by doing so – but reserve worship – which is qualitatively different – for her Son. This may sound like hair-splitting to Protestant ears, but in the mind of most Catholics I know, it is not difficult at all – it is reality as they know it (and a beautiful one, at that).
No true Catholic worships Mary. If anyone places more emphasis on Mary than God, or worships Mary in any way, they are at best a heretical Christian, and at worst, a pagan.
I can’t say I’ve spent much time in either Latin America or Europe. But here in the good ol’ U.S. of A., I haven’t come across any Catholic in the past year – literally none – who even remotely approaches “worshiping” Mary.
I strongly, strongly recommend consulting the Catechism of the Catholic Church (available for free online) to determine what Church teaching actually is on a given topic. It doesn’t get any more official. It is truly “the horse’s mouth.”
As with any institution, there is a discrepancy between official teaching and actual practice among us messy and fallen humans. If you think that is unique to Catholicism, I have some beachfront property in Eastern Wyoming I’d like to sell you.
Briefly, regarding art in churches: Would you also have found the massive, fantastically ornate representations of the cherubim on the ark of the covenant “distracting?” How about Solomon’s Temple? If you have a beef with them, you may want to take it up with God, who I defer to on matters of aesthetics.
It largely depends on what you are accustomed to: If you worship at a church that’s sole work of art or symbol is the Cross at the alter, then ornate and detailed paintings, statues, and carvings may seem distracting. But to the believers who worship there, it will seem like, well…..”church.”
There is of course a grand, complex, nuanced reason why many Reformers protested against the worship of saints, images, and relics: Many Christians (Catholics) of the day were, um, worshiping saints, images, and relics. (ahem).
And even more briefly, on the Pope hearing arguments for upgrading Mary’s status in the Church: The Pope is lobbied on all sorts of issues, and has been since the first Pope nearly 2,000 years ago.
Implying some imminent sea change in Church teaching on this issue – because someone is lobbying for it, as they have for hundreds of years – is a bit like implying that South Dakota’s Congresswoman favors banning meat consumption because PETA representatives request a meeting with her staff. It’s a leap that defies logic.
My point is not necessarily to change your mind. But it is to nudge you toward the conclusion that Catholic belief is at least reasonable, and should be given the same deference given to other Christians with whom you disagree – say, Calvinist Evangelicals, for example.
BC
June 29, 2009 at 11:37 am
Steve Hickey
Bryce – strong defense of your take on some of these things – I appreciate what you’ve written. I’ll first start by confessing the Protestant Church is in need of desperate reform right now so me looking here critically at Catholicism is a bit of a log/eye thing.
Father, forgive me for I am about to sin… ; )
I’ve never heard anyone say there are priests today who admit the Roman Church was sorely in need of reform in the 16th century as you have stated. My question then is why would they hold fast to a doctrine of apostolic succession after the admission that the chain of faithfulness was broken by corrupt and even immoral popes at numerous points? We could debate all day the view that Jesus was making Peter the first pope when he gave him the “keys”. At the end of it I’d still say he who has the keys does not replace the giver of the keys. And clearly, the buck stops with the pope today.
I’ve only been in a dozen Mass ceremonies so who am I to comment. Yet, you know the Reformers were able to show Scripturally that resacrificing Jesus at each Mass was an error. To exclude me, as has happened a dozen times, to exclude me -an ordained minister of the gospel- from partaking the Lord’s Supper is enormously offensive. I never make a big deal about it – a few times the priest has apologized to me personally but that he doesn’t make the rules.
I’m reminded of my late grandmother Gladys in the nursing home in Marion, SD a few years ago. Once when visiting her I could see she was very troubled. She wanted others to leave so she could talk only to me. She told me the visiting priest refused to serve her Communion on his weekly rounds. Communion was essential to her and she wanted to know from me, not as grandson but as ordained clergy, if her keeping back a breadroll at breakfast and privately taking Communion back in her room with the roll and a cartoon of Ensure “counted” as “the Lord’s Supper.” I’ll admit some anger rose in me when I told her her private, unconsecrated cup of Ensure and her hard breakfast roll was more efficatious than what the priest was peddling.
I share that story to illustrate that I deal with Catholicism on a pastoral level and these extra-Biblical doctrines get in the way of people hungry for God.
The point I felt came through the strongest in your reply was to liken “art” in churches to the “ornate” representations of the cheribuim on the ark of the Covenant. Yet even there I quickly think of how the Ark was built at the command of God according, precisely, to the prophetic vision given Moses. Statues of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph etc. or any other man never decorated these holy places/things – and certainly not in any form that people bowed before or prayed to. God certainly didn’t tolerate the pasting of skulls on the side of the Ark of the Covenant (which was really the main thing I was pointing out in this post.)
I guess I should clarify, when carved images did sneak into Israel’s worship life, God’s judgment quickly came. They were strictly commanded against these things…
“You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman…” Deut. 6:15-16
In farmer’s fields all over Europe here we are seeing shrines in the middle of the fields – one had wheat coming out of Jesus’ ears and he was bowing before his mother. There are kneelers in these shrines. Yet I read this in the Bible;
“Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it.” Lev. 26:1
You differentiate in your reply between worshipping and praying to Mary as if one is okay (communicating with Mary) and the other is not (worshipping Mary). Yet, both are strictly forbidden in Scripture. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 is a harsh pronouncement against the practice of communicating with or consulting the dead (necromancy).
Yet, Pope Pius iX in 1854 writes, “let all the children of the Catholic Church… proceed to venerate, invoke and pray to the most blessed Virgin Mary, mother of God.” (The quote is in the very last paragraph of the link. But the entire statement of Pope Pius amplifies his exaltation of her as the go-to person.)
Yikes! John 16:23 Jesus says, “if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you.” Why would anyone ever want to go through Mary or anyone else when Jesus paved the way for direct access to the Father?
Really now, it’s a bit of a leap of reality to lump the thousands of things the Pope is lobbied on everyday in with this movement and practice in Catholicism of exalting Mary to a co-redemtrix status with Jesus. This is hardly just one among many things he’s lobbied with each day. It is blatent perhaps especially in other parts of the world – Latin America in particular. Maybe there are other Catholics or ex-Catholics reading this who can speak to their own experience with Mary worship.
I remember before I came to Sioux Falls being frustrated that a few of the youth in my youth group went to see the Pope when he was in Denver (1993). In his effort to keep young people in the Catholic Church he entrusted this young generation to “Mary’s protection and guidance.” Huh? Mary is incapable of protecting anyone today. A few minutes ago I looked here on the catholic.org website and read the prayer liturgy to Mary (THE SALVE REGINA). It says… Mary… our life… our hope.
Ahh. Bryce, Jesus is our life. Jesus is our ONLY hope.
I do own a copy of the Catechism. I bought it ten years ago because I wanted to go directly to the horses mouth. A couple things on that point, why do Catholics site that and not the Bible? I know we also have rampant Biblical illiteracy in the Protestant Church but the Catholics coming our way, almost all of them, have no idea with regard to the Bible. I wish I had my copy of the Cathecism here with me – maybe it’s better that I don’t – but it is on my shelf dog-eared and with post-it notes marking key passages. One of those passages is where we are told that Muslims are considered under the umbrella of salvation because of the blood of their Father Abraham (because they are blood descendants of Abraham). Yet the Bible teaches Jesus’ blood opened the way to the father and God can make sons of Abraham out of the stones on the ground.
I hope I can share these things in this manner without offending you. That’s not my intent. I’m just blogging away here – thinking outloud really about some of the Reformation history I’m waist deep in over here. I don’t have an ax to grind with Catholics and know many who deeply deeply love our Lord Jesus. I’m much more comfortable hammering away at wayward Protestants, or better yet, my own failings as a follower of Christ. As a pastor I spend hours with people removing the things that stand between them and God – one of the biggest things is the CHURCH.
Peace!
June 29, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Bryce
Hi Steve,
I appreciate the candid personal details, and in a certain sense I understand your past frustrations very well. I come at these issues as one who has had a foot in each camp, so to speak. Five or so years ago, as an ardent Catholic-critic, I would not have been so diplomatic as you.
On a few points you made, a few comments:
1) “My question then is why would they hold fast to a doctrine of apostolic succession after the admission that the chain of faithfulness was broken by corrupt and even immoral popes at numerous points?”
Why would an immoral pope break the chain of apostolic succession? Again, remember Israel: Did a series of wicked kings negate God’s promises, and negate their status as his Chosen People? Absolutely, unequivocally, the answer is “no.” If you believe the “Keys” were given to Peter, as Catholics do, (taking Jesus at his word in Matthew 16:15-19), there is no reason to believe these small-minded figureheads could unilaterally disengage themselves from a promise from Our Lord (2 Timothy 2:13).
2) “Yet, you know the Reformers were able to show Scripturally that resacrificing Jesus at each Mass was an error.”
Steve, you should have that dog-eared Catechism with you! If you did, you would note V. The Sacramental Sacrifice Thanksgiving, Memorial, Presence. In Catholic worship, Christ is not “re-sacrificed” each Mass. His sacrifice, and its contingent benefit, is made present, similar in nature to Jewish belief that the Passover is made present each time it is celebrated. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM). Again, I’m not saying you have to agree – I’m just looking for an accurate representation of Church teaching. It’s also important to note that the Catechism – which uses Scriptural references throughout – is not necessarily an apologetic text, but a statement of belief.
3) “You differentiate in your reply between worshipping and praying to Mary as if one is okay (communicating with Mary) and the other is not (worshipping Mary).”
It’s not that I’m urging you to think that one is “okay” and the other “is not.” I’m saying one is qualitatively different from the other.
Communication is a part of worship, but worship is not necessarily a part of communication. (And now, I will demonstrate exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin….ha!). I hope to get into this later, if it relevant to the blog’s subject matter. If not, I’ll just shoot you an e-mail. It’s one of the toughest eggs for a Protestant-minded fellow like myself to crack while in the RCC.
4) “This is hardly just one among many things he’s lobbied with each day… It is blatent perhaps especially in other parts of the world – Latin America in particular”
Clearly it is an enduring issue, because people have been lobbying him for centuries on this one. It is, however, one of hundreds of issues he is urged to modify each year.
And what I’m referring to is high-level theologians and bishops advocating the Pope directly – not the variety of misguided popular religious practices around the world (Latin America, and elsewhere).
5) “Ahh. Bryce, Jesus is our life. Jesus is our ONLY hope.”
For all the airtime Catholic-Protestant discussions give the Big Three Bones of Contention – Purgatory, Mary and the Saints – the Catholic churches I’ve attended are all “Jesus-this,” and “Holy-Spirit-that.” For Pope Benedict XVI’s first book, I was hoping for a good defense of worshiping 3rd Century relics as gods in themselves, just to get the blood boiling a bit. But no – It’s all Jesus of Nazareth-stuff, blah, blah, blah. It’s very disappointing for agitators like myself. (Ok, sarcasm button, “off”…highly recommend his book, btw)
6) “One of those passages is where we are told that Muslims are considered under the umbrella of salvation because of the blood of their Father Abraham (because they are blood descendants of Abraham)”
Actually, you don’t need your dog-eared copy of Catechism – it is available online here http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM. I reference it because it is the definitive statement of Catholic doctrine, and is steeped in Scripture – not your interpretation in places, perhaps, but steeped nonetheless.
You are looking for Paragraphs 841- 848. This text simply states that many religions contain elements of truth, and that some will never know Christ through no fault of their own. These people (who we as Christians literally can’t reach for evangelization) we entrust to God’s mercy. C.S. Lewis has made similar, if not identical, arguments.
7) “I’m just blogging away here – thinking outloud really about some of the Reformation history I’m waist deep in over here. I don’t have an ax to grind with Catholics and know many who deeply deeply love our Lord Jesus. I’m much more comfortable hammering away at wayward Protestants, or better yet, my own failings as a follower of Christ.”
Certainly understand this, and I don’t want to distract from a central theme of your trip (and the blog): preparation for a reformation of sorts within certain strands of Protestant Christianity. However, a great unexplored area that doesn’t get near enough play is the symbiotic relationship between movements within the RCC and movements within Protestant church communities – even if these relationships are at times antagonistic.
At its best, I liken it to iron sharpening iron.
Thanks, Steve!
BC
June 30, 2009 at 7:54 am
Jon Perrin
Something I learned about the German churches there was from the Cologne Cathedral (Koelner Dom). Once a tour guide told us that the thousands of statues that adorn the outside of the cathedral are as intricately and artistically carved on the back (where they are mounted) as they are on the front (where they are seen). The artisans did this because they knew God saw the back and He deserved their best.
Also, in the Burg Eltz castle near Moselkern (our favorite castle so far), there is a chapel on the ground floor. Once when we were taking a tour, we saw a room that was obviously intentionally unfinished. I thought this was strange for a castle, so I asked about it. The tour guide told me that they left that unfinished because they believed “no one should live above God’s house.”
These experiences have helped me to understand the great amount of respect God and the Church used to hold. But through mismanagement, neglect and outright abuse, the Church lost its honor and, therefore, its value in the eyes of the people. That’s what we’re trying to win back… for the glory of HIS name!
June 30, 2009 at 9:20 am
Steve Hickey
Jon – thanks for sharing – it is critical we worship God with excellence and extravagence! (Still, no one is tackling/defending what I see as the defilement of the skulls.)
To everyone else – Jon and Robin Perrin are the missionaries here in Germany whose home we are staying in! They are back in the states on furlough this summer. Check out his blog, website, ministry, etc!
Blake and Bryce – you both have braved to offer dissenting views here and have done so graciously. I have to share this with you… check it out here.
June 30, 2009 at 11:09 am
What did you say about my mama? « Gate Post
[...] June 30, 2009 in Jesus, Sabbatical A few of you may be following the dialog that has been on going at one of my recent posts here. I’ve said some things that have invoked a notable Catholic response. Oops, not my intention, but hey. If you need to get up to speed go here. [...]
July 24, 2009 at 4:58 am
The anti-Semitic pig in Wittenberg « Gate Post
[...] pig Wittenberg, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Luther anti-Semitism Earlier I posted on what, to me, is “art” that has no place anywhere near the House of God. My earlier comment on skulls on altars was something to the effect that at best it’s a [...]
September 14, 2010 at 11:07 am
bob
I am an EX catholic, capitalizing EX as am extremely pleased to be an ex.
caused much pain in my earlier life.
What I wanted to write is: I was at a christian retreat years ago, and a woman there said “I have been to churches all over the world and I think all the churches should have beautiful statues of the Holy Family, Saints, etc.”
I told her, I have been to many of those churches overseas when in the service, and I told her “I would much rather be in a church full of Christians than of statues of idol worship………
September 14, 2010 at 11:10 am
bob
Also, have children who are still catholic, and I see them falling farther and farther away from the truth. I pray for them daily, and I truly believe my prayers will be answered. I believe in the power of prayer, at 75 yrs. I have witnessed many, many answers to prayer.
Thank You all God Bless………..Bob b