Fullness of Life in a Body of Disrepair: A conversation between two Seeking the life of Christ in a Broken Body.
Scott Grace wrote:
If you ever have a free moment I am interested in learning a bit about your views on the state of the Church today. Maybe this is unfair in an email, however I am going to ask anyway. I have not heard much concerning your Ecclesiastical associations, but, as you can imagine, when you left FBBC many uniformed fundamentalists from my upbringing "labeled" you unfairly. I never heard the story from your side. I know that might be an entire dinner conversation, but I would be happy to hear the readers digest version or even sound bite version. I welcome your thoughts, for the reason that I am trying to process through, myself, my understandings of what the Church should look like in respect to Scripture, History, and Tradition. Here in Dallas I have attended four very different "forms" of Church, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Bible/Community, and Contemporary Seeker-Mega Church. I have enjoyed all four "genres" and found all helpful.
Dr. Caton wrote: Yes, you are right about spiritual and ecclesiastical and theological change: development and growth (the only sign of real life) will always, I am sorry to say, bring misunderstanding to some. ...
... but I think I could summarize my journey by saying that it was a theological and historical (and spiritual) quest for (1) completeness and fullness of doctrine; (2) consistency; (3) theological and dogmatic and historical integrity; and (4) spiritual strength and practical graces to live a more honoring life for our Divine Lord. ...
I have been blessed to teach at a Christian college (and a seminary) where my "mere Christianity" (as Lewis would call it) is good enough to include me and my journey as a legitimate expression of the Christian faith; for very much a part of my spiritual journey includes the insight (and the conviction) that if an ecclesial or theological expression of Christianity is trying, in all sincerity and faithfulness, to be true to our Lord Jesus Christ, then it is actually, in some way, organically related to the Catholic Church. In other words, I count all my Protestant brethren (in whatever type of ecclesial community--as for example the ones you mentioned ... Episcopal, Presbyterian, Bible/Community, Contemporary-Seeker-Mega-Church) as somehow striving on to make our Lord Jesus more and more a part of their lives, more and more a part of who they are. So that sense of organic relation (with the Catholic Church, which I do consider to embody in its fullness the Body of Christ) doesn't present a lot of "either/or" problems for me (and for some of my Christian colleagues, for whom my Catholicity is perhaps somewhat of a "stretch," but for whom it is not absolutely impossible to process).
The state of the Church today? I think that Christian brothers and sisters, insofar as they hold to a "sola scriptura" hermeneutic, are and will continue to be somewhat hampered in withstanding the social, cultural, and other pressures which the 21st century presents to them. Or, to put it positively, Christian brothers and sisters will need to rediscover, if they are to be consistent, effective, powerful witnesses for Jesus Christ in the 21st century, a sense of how scripture is the reflection and expression and "proof" of the Church's teaching, but it is not the "foundation" of the teaching, as if we can start with a clean slate, with "nothing but the Bible." I think (to make things relevant to you and me) that the Christological controversies of the fourth century illustrate that point. The scriptures can be used to support Arianism; the Apostles and the tradition flowing from the Apostles did NOT, however, teach Arianism. And thus it was condemned--because it was not, in the end, "the teaching of the Church"--however the scriptures may be used or abused. The state of the Protestant ecclesial communities is a state of sincerity, love, and a commitment to truth (in biblical Protestant circles), but it is, in my view, a state of "attenuation." In other words, Protestantism, largely, in my view, is not wrong in what it affirms, but in what it denies. Every solid affirmation of Protestantism is usually held by the Catholic Church. But (of course speaking for myself) the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth, and in days like these (to speak "tactically"), we need the whole arsenal of truth to combat evil, unfounded relativism, and sin. [I have not, in any of what I have written above, implied that the members of the Catholic Church in this country, or the clergy of the Catholic Church in this country, are beyond reproach, practically speaking and can, in themselves, be seen as exemplars in the courageous and heroic fight for truth and for goodness; they are humans and are subject to human frailties and sins. Scandals come, stupidities manifest themselves, unfaithfulness can abound. And yet, I believe, the divine nature of the Church will see her through; her protector and sustainer is Christ, for the Church is Christologically centered, and her guide under Christ, here on earth, is Peter. And I do believe that the gates of hell will not prevail against this Church.]
Scott wrote:
Thank you for your letter, I understand that email is a very difficult avenue for a discussion of any depth, so I appreciate your willingness to open yourself to this difficult subject.
I really appreciate what you said about your journey and discovery of "a theological and historical (and spiritual) quest for (1) completeness and fullness of doctrine; (2) consistency; (3) theological and dogmatic and historical integrity; and (4) spiritual strength and practical graces to live a more honoring life for our Divine Lord." I think that encompasses much of what I imagine when I imagine the Church as an organic body of truth and life.
I understand that Apostolic Authority and Church Tradition played an important role in the promulgation of sound doctrine in the early centuries, especially during the formation of the canon. One of my Professors used a catchy phrase in reference to the heretical movements, he said, "Bible, Bible, Bible, every one is using the Bible. I think he was right, not only in his direct reference, but also in his implied reference to the lack of respect for Church Tradition. Most of my understanding of the history of the church demonstrates a protestant chauvinism toward the Catholic Church, so I admit my understandings of the RC Church are limited. A typical protestant church history program will spend far less time on the period of 500AD-1500AD than on any other period. Im not sure why that is, but its just the way it is.
Well, Im sure you have heard all of the arguments against RC dogma and heirarchy (my favorite, especially, being the interpretation of the Whore of Babylon as the RC Church!!! not really), so I will not be so bold as think that you have not considered them, so I must ask, how do one who is faithful to the Church and scripture balance Church Tradition and Dogma when it seems to lack validity or substance in the scriptures?
I know that I can affirm, based on your genuine spirit of faithfulness and devotion to Christ and his Church, that your journey has been a sincere pursuit of Faith guided by the Spirit of Christ, so I sincerely welcome your thoughts.
Dr. Caton wrote:
Thank you for your very kind note.
n answer to your specific question, I would approach things this way: you and I both know that different people and different churches and denominations and groups have different interpretations of scripture. That much is a truism. You and I both believe, too, that scripture is not a COMPLETE "nose of wax" that can be interpreted in both infinitely and equally legitimate ways. (In other words, it's not ALL subjective, and some interpretations ARE objectively better than others.) WIth those points, in mind, then, I would be willing to say this: (1) scripture study itself helped lead me to the Catholic Church (in other words, I wasn't drawn to the Church "in spite of" the scriptures, or against all common-sense interpretations of scripture, or against my better hermeneutical judgment); (2) there are no scriptures that--when properly interpreted according to historical or hermeneutical principles of merit and when likewise understood as the Church understands them--go against or witness against the Church's doctrines or dogmas at all; (3) in my experience, seeing scripture from a Catholic point of view has actually helped me understand scripture better, and I don't have to say, "Well, even though the scriptures say thus-and-so, I'm not going to worry about that, I'm just going to go along, blindly, with what the Church teaches, even if it's against the scriptures."
...In other words, I definitely believe that the scriptures and the Church's dogmas and doctrines are absolutely complementary. The scriptures are the Church's scriptures, and they cannot go against her teaching in any way, shape, or form. (In other words, the Church's claim about herself and her understanding of the scriptures is not just philosophically "non-falsifiable" or a vicious circle. If there were something plainly taught in the scriptures which all scholars from all perspectives definitely agreed, on provable historical or reasonable grounds, contradicted Church teaching, then I would find that to be a serious problem indeed (for my faith, for my life, etc.). But so far I have never seen it. This is not to say that there aren't people whose interpretation of scripture flies in the face of the Church's teaching, so that, from their own perspective, they have "found verses in scripture which disprove the Catholic teaching." Of course there are people like that. But that's only saying that non-Catholics probably have ways of looking at scripture that aren't in accord with Catholic teaching (which is what we would expect, since they are non-Catholics). It is NOT saying that scriptures have been found which objectively undercut the teaching of the Church. You will always find that people's interpretations of various scriptures (which they will call, of course, "the teaching of scripture") will differ with the Catholic Church's dogmas. Then, it is one's job, I suppose, to examine these one-by-one, taking each situation as it comes, and one must ask one's self, "Yes, this non-Catholic interpretation has a point. But let me look at this more closely, and see how the Church handles or interprets this verse. Is the Church in utter ignorance of this or that verse? [That would be a point against her, for sure!] Or is the Church's 'explanation' of that verse so false, so forced, so stupid as to demonstrate quite clearly that the Church herself knows full well she's trying to put up a front or a hopelessly fruitless defense? [That would be a point against her, too!] Or does the Church have a reasonable interpretation of that verse which, while I do not necessarily agree with it, DOES make sense, and DOES show that she herself has an understanding of that verse and of her theology that takes seriously the logical point that they must, after all be in harmony?" Again, coming to that last stage does not, in and of itself, demand that the non-Catholic accept the Catholic teaching in question. It will only mean that (1) the Catholic teaching is possibly true and (2) the person is wiser because he/she will see, little by little, that the Church, in her dogmas and doctrines, does not treat scripture with disdain, or even in a cavalier fashion.
I have, of course, not handled in this e-mail any one of these potential "scripture problems" specifically (that is, particular verses in question, hundreds of which both of us could come up with in about 15 seconds). Right now that would not be profitable. But I am simply writing what I wrote to establish an important principle. All the verses can be handled (and the Church welcomes that they be handled by the honest inquirer) one-by-one. ("I thought Mary had other children." Or, "Call no man father." Or "It's only by believing in Jesus, not through being baptized or accepting the Church's teaching that one can be saved, as we see clearly from the following verses ...." Or, "How could Mary be sinless, if 'ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'?" And so on.)
I guess that's all for now. Let's keep the conversation going. Please know you're in my prayers as you tackle this very busy semester.
Scott wrote:
Dr. Caton,
Greetings!
Thank you for your thoughts! I think I understand more clearly the relationship between the teachings/dogmas of the Church (i refer to the RC Church) and the interpretation of scripture. If I am understanding you correctly, the true (and only?) interpretation of scripture (because anyone can make the bible say what they want it to say) is found in the teaching of the Catholic church? Scripture is always in line with Catholic Dogma and Catholic Dogma is always in line with Scripture. So it is necessary that the interpretation of scripture must belong to the Church, and cannot be found outside of it (or if it is found outside of the Church, it will agree with the Church). Is this a fair assessment?
Now my difficulties are many. Some of the issues include Baptism for the removal of Original Sin, Merit of the Saints, Purgatory, Mary as Co-Redemprix, Transubstatiation, salvific grace mediated through sacraments, etc... I admit that my study of Roman Catholic Doctrine is minute and limited to situations where Teachers are simply telling me where the RC Church is wrong and why they are wrong. I have yet to sit in a setting where I might understand the teaching of the Church from the RC Church's perspective, or at least from a position of neutrality. I believe this has hindered me in several ways, yet it is all I have to work with at this point, so please forgive me if I am seemingly ignorant.
The Church then seems to me to have placed a "monopoly" (if you will) on the interpretation and teaching of Scripture. I do believe that Orthodox Doctrine belongs to the Church (but I use Church to refer to the body of believers throughout the centuries rather than an heirarchical organization). The idea of the monopoly, I think, can be evidenced by the fact that the Scriptures remained in the Latin for so long rather than in the languages of the common people. It is my understanding then that this action assumes that the "uneducated" or "unchurched" are unable, for themselves, to read and understand the Bible without some sort of Specialized Guidance. How does this promote devotion and love of Christ outside the specific location of the physical Church? One of my favorite pieces of Christian Spirituality is Thomas A Kempis, so I understand devotion and love of Christ exists truly, but what about the laymen?
A Second question regards the fallibility of the Church. If it is assumed that the "Church" cannot be in error, then logically it would follow that the all teaching and study should remain in the Church, but both you and I know men are forever doomed to error. The church, though destined to persevere, has to face the demons, if you will. Men have always abused power and always will. I understand the necessity of Apostolic Succession in the early centuries, but do you think the "organization" of the "Church" is necessary? I refer to political/religious positions of power and control? Martin Luther, though never intending the outcome (separatism/disunity) of his "reformation," struggled against a system of power. I struggle with that idea of absolute authority. Can you help me?
Are there any books you would suggest on the history and theology of the Catholic Church during the "Medieval/Dark" Ages ? I hope you are having a good week.
Dr. Caton Wrote:
As to your first paragraph, yes, the Catholic position would be that Catholic dogma is always in line with the “correct” interpretation of scripture. However that is not to say that the Church has worked out every correct interpretation of each and every verse of scripture. I am sure there will always be mysteries there in the inexhaustible scriptures. (In other words, there’s no book or website you can go to with THE Catholic teaching on every jot and tittle of scripture. There is lots and lots of room for all good scholars to think about and ruminate on holy scripture. The Church’s claim is simply that nothing will ever be found to go against the teachings of scripture, because of course Holy Scripture is the Church’s Holy Scripture.)
As to your second paragraph, you do not seem ignorant at all about these questions. You have obviously been given by God a wonderful intellect and a lot of grace in order to understand and observe that your setting determines a lot, and that there might be some things to be learned by listening to other voices and perspectives (from the Catholic side). This is a position of maturity—whether or not the Catholic Church is true in any, most, or all of what she teaches. Each one of these questions (baptism and the removal of original sin, merit, purgatory, Mary, transubstantiation, grace-through-sacraments) is a big question, and it is perfectly reasonable and legitimate to ask serious things about these various doctrines and claims. Of course I can’t go into every one of these at length in this paltry e-mail, but if you like we could take things one-at-a-time and work through them—not as a matter of “convincing” you of any particular truth, but simply to communicate, in my own inadequate way, the Church’s teaching about them, so that at least you know the position as fully as possible. We could start with any one you wish. Since several of these items have to do with “sacraments” in general, we might start there in principle, and that would extend by implication to things like transubstantiation, baptism, grace mediated through sacraments, etc. It’s just one suggestion. You let me know at your convenience what is one of the most burning questions for you, and we can take it from there.
As to your third paragraph, (1) as I wrote above, just because the Church says that a correct interpretation of scripture will not contradict Church teachings does not mean that the Church has “the answer” to the interpretation of every scriptural verse; (2) therefore the Church doesn’t have a “monopoly” on scholarly interpretation in the usual sense—in the direct and “power” sense—although, of course, a corollary of #1 would be that if a scholar came up with an interpretation of the Bible that totally went against Church teaching, and if that scholar propounded this as “the Church’s teaching,” and/or if this scholar were a Catholic teaching theology in a Catholic theology department, he/she might run into problems; (3) the issue of the common people not having the scriptures for themselves in the Middle Ages or the early modern period, for example, is delicately related to the issue of “interpretation,” but it’s not necessarily a function of “monopoly.” At least not in the direct sense. It’s related to a few important theological and historical factors: (a) Most people then couldn’t read, so why would they need a Bible? (b) Even people that can read, without real theological and biblical training [as you know from your seminary experience], aren’t usually very well-qualified at all to give thoughtful, informed interpretations as to the biblical texts. (c) The Church DID see the Holy Scriptures as her own (which is where “monopoly” could come into play, but hear me out), and the prevention of translation and dissemination of the scriptures (by what were, from the Church’s point of view, “unauthorized” persons—private scholars, monks who had broken their monastic vows, etc.) was more an issue, if you will, of “copyright infringement” before the days of copyright law. In other words, the Church had custody of the Bible historically (her people wrote it, as she viewed the matter—apostles, people who had been with the apostles, et al.), and so the Church believed she was the guardian of scripture. [That’s the brief point; we can talk about this more if you wish. I will send you a copy of an e-mail I just wrote to an acquaintance of mine about this subject, okay?] (d) it was historically true that people out on their own telling other people what the Bible said who were not under the Church’s authority got themselves in trouble.
As to your fourth paragraph, IF the teaching of the Church is infallible, it does not necessarily follow that all teaching and study should remain in the Church, because at this historical stage of the game, people DO have Bibles (of various languages and translations, etc.), and scholars DO write about and think about biblical matters (whether or not they are Catholic or even Christian), and there is tactically no way to put the toothpaste back into the tube even if that were desirable. On the contrary, honest and good scholarship—done in whatever quarter—would, according to the Catholic model, actually draw people, little by little (if they were sincere men and women who wanted to let truth take them wherever it might lead) back into the Catholic Church (at least in principle, but not in every given case because of the allotted life of a human on this earth and because of various cultural and psychological factors). So it’s always “to the Church’s advantage” (though I don’t wish to be interpreted crassly by saying it that way) to have honest and good scholars working on the Bible, from whatever tradition. Truth is one, and if the Catholic Church really is true, then truth will lead there in the end.
Also in that fourth paragraph, you bring up the issue of infallibility, I think, and the implications for error and for evil. It is true that if an institution is infallible in what it teaches (as the Catholic Church claims for herself), then that DOES mean that she cannot teach, as official doctrine, an error. But: (1) it doesn’t mean that each and every teacher—even a Catholic—is guarded from error if he/she is teaching something. (There are a lot of craaaaazy priests teaching stupid and un-Catholic things in the Church today); (2) it DOES mean that one has to find out what the “official teaching” of the Church (if any) IS on a given subject, because that is the only thing that is guaranteed to be true; (3) infallibility of the Church’s teaching doesn’t mean that the Church is “impeccable”—that is, that people in her communion, leaders, teachers, or whoever, are not going to SIN. Error in teaching is not the same as personal sin. (And even “error in teaching,” if done ignorantly, is not actually a sin, by the way.) There have been popes in the history of the Church (not many, but some) who have lived less-than-holy (or sometimes perhaps scandalous) lives. But they have not taught anything not in line with the Church. (Even the doctrine about the infallibility of the pope when defining a doctrine for all the faithful does not of course mean that the pope is impeccable—moreover, and more to the point, it does not mean, either, that the pope cannot make a mistake in day-to-day matters, or even in other things. It just means that he is shielded from error when making an official, defining pronouncement about dogma which applies to all the faithful. And by the way, the popes have only made two such statements in the history of the Church—one in 1854 solemnly defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and one in 1950 solemnly defining the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. That’s it.)
As to the fifth paragraph, I would recommend two books by (lay) historian Henri Daniel-Rops: Cathedral and Crusade: Studies of the Medieval Church 1050-1350 and his book The Church in the Dark Ages. These are translated from the French.
Scott wrote:
Dr. Caton,
Thank you for taking so much time to answer my quandaries. I know that your schedule is demanding; I do not take your communication lightly. As far as your "lack of communication," no worries, last semester was by far the most busy (and difficult) semester of my time here; school, work, internship required every waking moment (and even many needed moments of sleep!).
I assume that you are done this week and graduation is this weekend... so congratulations on another year! Do you mainly teach the undergraduate classes? Or are there Master's classes too?
Well, I have just begun Newman's work and so far it is fascinating. He is so articulate and well spoken. He speaks far more elegantly than most people can write! Thats brilliance in my book. I really appreciate his emphasis on developing students who are challenged more broadly in cultural matters than in scientific matters, and I especially appreciate his openness to science as a field of study which is done within the truths of a Theistic worldview. I am currently at the point where he is making the point that the "University" cannot seriously be called such if it does not consider all fields of possible knowledge such as Religion/Theology. He makes the point that the only University that can truly call itself a "University" without including Theology in its courses of consideration is the University that is absolutely convinced that the field of Religion and Theology has nothing to offer to any people at any times. Very provocative, given our current university-system's fascination with simply empirical study. I am looking forward to working through the book! Also two of my very good friends and I are jointly reading Mark Noll's "America's God" this summer. I am looking forward to that as well. Mark Noll is another question. Is he not a Protestant? Teaching in a RC School? How does that work?
Just an aside, I feel that my love for the ministry is taking me in a Pastoral direction, however I am highly affectioned by the necessity of Theological Education, that is, specifically, Christian Theological Education. I have a love for scholarship, but I fail to see the use of that scholarship unless it find its way into the hands and hearts of the "layman/laywoman." I just dont know how those two can fit together (Pastoral and Scholarly Theological Education) in one lifetime. I usually find great Pastors or Great Theologians, but very few times, if ever, do I see a Pastor devoted to his people who is also committed to intense and deep theological education. From what I have seen of my Seminary Professors, most seem to simply continue a cycle of education that goes like this: Knowledge from Professor A is transmitted to Student A, where Student A then becomes Professor B and passes the same information onto Student B who then follows suit and becomes Professor C. Maybe I havent been around long enough to see it, but I feel like I have to choose one or the other. Do you know what I mean? What I love to do is to learn and study, but my heart is with the People who dont normally interact with the Academy.
Wow... there is so much information to process from the last email. Thank you for being so detailed and careful. I particularly appreciated your treatment of the Scriptures belonging (i.e. copyrighted) to the Church (in your email sent to your friend) so that not just any Rogue could come along and "translate" thus inherently "interpreting" the text. I understand why the Church was hesitant to simply give everyone "his own" translation of the scriptures. The divisiveness in Evangelicalism is testimony to the fact that everyones interpretation is valid (at least in his own mind), which is simply not the case. It's just a foreign mentality to me, being that I assume everyone can read and that most have a high school education or better. I do not understand the society of the Middle Ages, especially the educational realm. My question is that, is not the Church to be held responsible for the education of its people, not simply teaching repetition of belief i.e. dogma? I guess what I am saying is that the Church, being that it was highly influential in Government back then, should have took measures to teach its people to read, even in their vulgar language, especially the Scriptures. Would the church not want its people to be exposed to the Word as much as possible? Obviously we cant go back and change things, and I am not suggesting that we blame anybody or that they were even wrong, but was the Churches attitude toward the education of its people less than satisfactory? Though the question itself does not solve anything, it would demonstrate a faulty view of educational/spiritual/theological capabilities of the average person. Maybe an elitist mentality. I understand the Church "owns" the Scriptures, and I would agree to that statement in part in that the Community of believers has the right to the preservation, dissemination, and interpretation of the Scriptures. My difficulty would be that One Government of governmental officials has the right to the "ownership" of the Scriptures. These thoughts are not arguments, Im just trying to talk through and understand the "mind" of this thinking.
The Church "owns" the Scriptures and the Church's "interpretation" of the Scriptures is the true interpretation, but the Church still has room for interpretation among its Theologians and Students so long as their interpretation is inline with the Church's overall position. And anyone (Catholic or non-Catholic) will find that, in the pursuit of true Christian teaching, there understandings will line up with the Church and ultimately lead them to the Church. Am I understanding correctly? If this is correct then, the Protestant understanding of Mary as simply "theotokos" is faulty. We believe (at least I do) that Mary is the Mother of God, but that I do not understand how the the Church proposes an Immaculate Conception, Mary as Co-Redemptrix, and Mary's Assumption. My understanding and interpretation of Scripture has not led me to believe these things, how do I, in seeking Truth from Scripture align myself with the True Interpretation of the Church? What are your understandings of these matters?