My Catholic faith, part quatro

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,

Eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God,

Light from Light,

True God from True God,

Begotten, not made. . .

Then comes a statement that was hotly debated during early Christian history. It has tgo do with the relationship between Father and Son:

One in being with the Father.

This was a debate over one letter. In Greek, the word homoousios means "the same as," or "one in being with." It posits identity between the Father and the Son. The word homoiousios does not suggest such identity. The Father and the Son are very much like each other, but they are not the same.  The answer that classical Christianity settled on was that Jesus Christ was "one in being with the Father" - i.e., homoousios. When we Catholics say the Nicene Creed, we affirm the homoousios position. Most Protestant denominations also subscribe to the Nicene Creed, and affirm the same. Eastern Orthodox do not use the Nicene Creed, but the difference between Eastern Orthodox and Western Christianity does not hinge on this phrase. Eastern Orthodox would also affirm the homoousios position.

The Scriptural backing for such a position is plentiful and, to me, compelling. When Jesus says, "I and the Father are one"; when Jesus says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father", he seems clear enough. But this is even clearer if you read in the original Koine Greek. In the Gospel of John, you see frequent "I Am" sayings of Jesus: "I AM the bread of life". . ."I AM the bread that came down from heaven". . ."I AM the living bread". . ."I AM the light of the world". . ."I AM the gate for the sheep". . ."I AM the resurrection and the life". . ."I AM the way, the truth, and the life". . .and, maybe the most emphatic of all, "Before Abraham was, I AM."

The Greek term that is translated as I AM is ego eimi. It's so strongly emphatic that there's really no adequate English translation. It's roughly equivalent to announcing it through a bullhorn" I - and only I - am. . ." And the writer of the Gospel sprinkles Jesus' saying this all over the place. Think he's trying to make a point?

Indeed, he is. The audience to Jesus' saying this wasn't a group of Greek speakers - the New Testament was written in Greek, but when Jesus said this he would have been speaking in Aramaic, a close descendant of Hebrew. He would not have said "ego eimi." He would have used the Hebrew term: YHWH. The ineffable name - the name that was so sacred it could not be pronounced - means "I AM" (or I AM WHAT I AM, or I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE - the Hebrew language doesn't use tenses quite like English does.)

Ego eimi = YHWH.

Before Abraham was, YHWH.

And we wonder why the Jewish crowd wanted to run him off a cliff? Homoousios!

Seems pretty persuasive to me, and it seemed so to the early church. But, as I learned in Dr. Healey's class, the first principle of theological history is, "Nothing ever goes away." So there are those groups who maintain the homoiousios postion even today.

Thanks for hanging out for a few! As always, I'd love your thoughts and reactions.

My Catholic faith and me, part drei

We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God. . .

I have seen much written about opening communications between Muslims and Christians. That is well and good and to be applauded, but the limitations of such dialogue must be recognized. Dialogue will open communications and further understanding, but if the idea of such dialogue is to convert the Muslims to Christianity, or to convert the Christians to Islam, forget it. It's on this very point that conversion stops. Islam holds that there is one God only. Trinitarian thought, the triune God that is standard to Christianity, the dual nature of Jesus Christ, are complete anathema to Islamic thought. In fact, Islam is much closer to Judaism than to Christianity in many respects - which only highlights the tragedy of the struggle in the Middle East. It's a fight between cousins.

The Hebrew word for peace - shalom - implies much more than an absence of war. It refers to one's being well with the universe. The Arabic word that captures the same concept: Salaam. Quite a resemblance there! The words are cognates, and there are quite a few cognates between Hebrew and Arabic.

But I am part of the Christian faith community. Thus:

We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God. . .

And the Nicene Creed continues:

eternally begotten of the Father. . .

That also doesn't go over very well in the non-Christian community.

God from God, 

Light from light,

True God from True God. . .

The nature of this Jesus Christ has been a source of much discussion, even during his own lifetime. The disciples wondered, "Who is this man, that even the wind and sea obey him? Who is this man who, using just a few loaves and fishes, feeds thousands? Who is this man who causes the blind to see, the lame to walk - the dead to live?" In asking this, they were really asking the only question that they could ask. The history of Christian thought tells us that if we start down the paths suggested by the question  "How?" or "Why?" we're going to wind up down a wrong path. We can't get our heads around concepts like, "How can God be three-in-one?" "How can Jesus be, at one and the same time, fully human and completely divine, with no confusion of the natures?"
No - the only question we can really ask is, "Who?" Who is the God-Man? Who was it who, in his earthly life, showed us who and what God is? Who is it that, by his Passion and Resurrection, provided the onkly means of salvation for us all? No other question really matters.
'Nuff for now. Thanks for hanging out for a few, and I'd love your thoughts.

Catholicism and me, part deux

I am a Roman Catholic.

We believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen..

That's the starting point.The rest of what I want to write about this is based on the Nicene Creed, one of the creeds of the early Church. The creeds were written to reply to contrary positions that some had taken. The form of theological debate was frequently a bit different than what we're used to. One group, holding to one position, would show up at a council with as many longshoremen as they could round up. Another group, maintaining a different position, would show up with their longshoremen.

Definition of a heretic: the guy with the weaker longshoremen.

One of the heresies in the early history of the church was that a good God could not have been the creator of an existence with so much evil. Today's exercise in theology: Go to Genesis 1 and see how many times the phrase "And God saw that it was good" is repeated. This apparently was unconvincing to the folks who maintained that, since a good God could not have created such an evil world, then the creation must have been the work of some other being, some demon. The position of the Church catholic (the word "catholic" - small "c" - means "universal") is and has been that the Creator made a good creation, and was, in fact, the same God that we came to know in the Hebrew scriptures, the same God that was the Father of Jesus Christ, the same God that sent his Son to redeem that creation. I believe in God - one God - the Father Almighty, maker of all that is seen and unseen - every atom, every molecule, every cell of your being and mine.

The second step of Alcoholics Anonymous is, "Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity." That's a terribly tough sticking point for many, for two reasons. This is the step that frequently separates the "want tos" from the "want to want tos". One of the reasons has to do with that word "sanity". Do you mean to suggest that we're insane? But an AA definition of insanity sheds much light. Insanity is repeating the same action, expecting a different result. If I know that every time I start to drink I wind up drunk, then isn't it insanity for me to start drinking, thinking that it will be different this time? And so the disease and the chemical kill us. Usually slowly and painfully. Usually taking away everything we'd thought dear before it kills us.

With that, how can you believe in any kind of God? The second reason that step 2 is so problematic has to do with that Higher Power. Our thinking gets so overblown, so egotistical, we start to think there could be no power higher than us. But, that Higher Power is what will restore you to sanity.

Does God still work in lives? Does God still work miracles?

I'll take you to any open AA meeting and show you ten of them. Miracles. Walking, talking, breathing. Living lives they've gotten back.

We believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen..

There is a Jewish translation of Genesis 1:1 that I find interesting. It's a little different from the translation we're used to seeing: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," or "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth." But the Jewish translation reads, "When God began to create the heavens and the earth. . ." I like the suggestion that God's creation isn't finished; it's still ongoing. God keeps on creating me, and you, and all the earth. And so I, Rick, alcoholic, last had a drink in 1985. Trust me, it took more than a little of God's grace, but God's grace has been there.

We believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen..

And I love Him dearly.

More later. Thanks for hanging out for a few!

Catholicism and me

I am Roman Catholic. I wasn't born into the Church; no cradle Catholic here. I've had a long and twisty spiritual journey. I don't talk much about denominations to which I used to belong. To say that I used to belong to denomination x, and that I no longer do, is, at least implicitly a putdown of denomination x, and I don't wish to go there.

I am Roman Catholic. As that twisty journey progressed I found myself developing my list of heroes in the faith, and I found that most of them were Catholic.

I was drawn to the Catholic faith of Thomas Merton. Merton had a childhood and youth that was chaotic, to say the least. Much of his growing up was done in England and France, sometimes with parents and sometimes without. As a young adult he experienced all of the decadence and sinfulness of the jazz age, of the pseudo-intellectuality of the undergraduate. But then he was touched by the Spirit and experienced metanoia - Greek, meaning "turning about" and almost always translated as "repentance" - that led to his joining the Catholic church, to his becoming a Cistercian monk at the Abbey of Gethsemani, to his writing of his experience in The Seven Storey Mountain. He was a prolific writer - his undergrad degree from Columbia was in English, and he taught briefly at St. Bonaventure - and much of his writing was of a devotional nature. But not all of it. In issues of war and peace, the position I have today is very close to Merton's. We recognize a right of self defense, and would concede that some wars probably needed to be fought. But, we would both maintain that there are few, if any wars, that, if traced to their roots and origins, made any sense.

I was drawn to the faith of Angelo Roncalli, who when elected Pope took the name of John XXIII. He owed his selection largely to the electors' belief that Montini, the guy they really wanted, wasn't quite ready. Roncalli was, at the time of his selection, a month shy of his 77th birthday, and was a lifelong Curialist. How much of a threat could he be to the old, established ways of doing things? But then he called Vatican II into session. He wanted, he said, to open the windows and let some fresh air in. Turns out, there was a hurricane blowing, and there was little that was left undisturbed. Fresh air, indeed! Did he know that all of that would happen? Like I said, John XXIII was in the Curia all his life.

I was drawn to the faith of Mother Teresa. She was born into decent circumstances, and could have chosen any path in life. She chose the path of service. She found herself teaching in a school maintained by her order in India, and served in a rather comfortable circumstance. But then she was moved by the plight of the poverty-stricken in Kolkota. She founded the Missionaries of Charity and spent the rest of her life in ministry to the poor, the sick and the dying. Her ministry was to the poorest of the poor; a concept like "assisting the worthy poor" would have been completely alien to her. She did not restrict her ministries to Catholics. Muslims who died in her care would hear holy Q'uran read to them; Hindus would receive water from the Ganges; Catholics would receive last rites. Mother Teresa's guiding principle was one I hope that I have adopted: that any human being is to be valued, and that any human being deserves to live and die die with dignity. Just. Because. They. Are. Human. No other reason needed.

I was drawn to the faith of Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. He was the reconciler nonpareil. In any bishops' committee meeting, when the discussion would reach an impasse, someone would say, "Who we need here is Joe Bernardin." A story that tells a lot about him: early in his time as Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago, he attended a town-hall type discussion. I don't remember the topic, but it was a controversial one. There was a lady in attendance who was particularly vocal in arguing the other position from Bernardin's. Many years later, after he'd learned that he was dying of cancer, he made a point to call this person. He still maintained the position he'd taken that night many years before, and she still maintained hers. But Bernardin reached out to make sure she knew that, despite their differences, he thought of her as a valued sister in Christ. He was the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago. There was no reason at all that he should have even remembered the discussion, let alone one individual who was there. But he did. The Body of Christ is big, and there's lots of room for diverging opinions.

'Nuff for now. More later. Bedtime. Thanks for hanging out - love your company, and I'd love your thoughts.