Shameless Popery: Martin Luther and the Book of James

And another terrific post by Joe Heschmeyer, this time on Martin Luther's assessment of the book of James...and what this says about the reliability of Luther's understanding of Justification in other Biblical texts (esp. Paul).

The combox discussion is also quite illuminating...

Here's the link:

Shameless Popery: Martin Luther and the Book of James: Martin Luther's hostility to the Book of James is well-known, and I've mentioned it in other contexts, but I wanted to consider today the im...

Response to Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) Street Evangelists, Part 12 of 24

This is the twelfth part of a 24-part series of responses to a street evangelist I met from Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE). Please click here to see the first post, which contains a set of links by topic to all the posts in the series.

12.  The Latin Mass.
Thanks for bringing up the Latin Mass. I love both the older Latin form of the Mass and the New, vernacular form as well. The language used at Mass is not a doctrinal issue, and so there is no problem with people using either one.

Also, make sure you think about the use of Latin historically and with all the facts.

For much of Church history, Latin was a language that common church-goers knew, so we shouldn’t imagine that no one understood the Mass until Vatican II began allowing the vernacular languages to be used. Further, even as time went on and fewer and fewer people knew the Latin language, the prayers of the Mass were often learned through repetition of hearing them, and children were educated in Latin as a second language, so many people understood the Latin being used. Even I have almost no training in Latin, but I know the Mass well enough to be able to follow the words in Latin. (It really isn’t that hard!) On top of that, after the invention of the printing press, the Church made available “missals,” a booklet that contained the Latin prayers of the Mass on one side and the translation on the other, just so that everyone could follow along if they needed/wanted to. And finally, the parts of the Mass that were not repeated every week, most especially the sermon on the four to five bible readings, were always given in the vernacular language. In fact, for the last five hundred years or so (the period where the Latin language fell out of general use), the priest at Mass would usually begin by translating at least the Gospel (if not more) into the vernacular language.

Here’s a little story that might help give you a different perspective on the use of Latin.

Imagine your family eating at a dinner table. You all speak the same language, and you use that language to bond with one another, sharing stories, creating unique turns of phrases that only your family understands, and passing on memories of what grandpa said, using that funny word that he loved to say, and that unique inflection that he always gave it. Over the decades, you watch your children grow, until they start bringing their own children with them to the dinner table. You pass on the family stories, raise them to know what it means to be a member of the Hall family, and share with the grandchildren the same laughs about (great-)grandpa that have enlivened family dinners for generations. Eventually your children’s children begin showing up to the dinner table with their children. You are by now an old man, but you relish returning week after week with your family that has, over the years, remained unified as a loving family, sharing stories, laughs, tears, memories, and the joy of family life.


Then one day, something changes.


A great-grandchild shows up to the table and has chosen to begin speaking a new language. That child doesn’t mean badly, but in choosing the new language, he forgets almost all of the older, family language. It doesn’t effect things too much at first: the child still kind of understands the stories about grandpa and most of the inside jokes are not lost on him.


But the trend continues.


Within a few months, almost all of the grandchildren have started speaking a new language, and none of them have chosen the same ones. Out of love, you and your children begin learning these languages so that you can do your best to translate the family tradition into these new tongues.


But you quickly realize that some of the most precious memories, stories, and laughs only make sense in the original language. In fact, the entire family identity would be lost if the original language itself was abandoned. With it, the unity of the family, bound up in the entire history and memory of the family would dissolve.

Now, if you are a family man like I am, the sense of horror at the dissolution of the family makes one want to cry: “Stop! Keep the traditions alive! Don’t give up the family language!”

One hopes and prays that the children are only going through a phase and will one day desire to know their roots enough to at least try to understand the family language enough to learn her history, her story, and the unique forms of expression and address that bind her into a solid unit.

My friend, the Catholic Church has always struck a great balance between preserving the family language while doing everything in her power to make that language accessible (relative to the need for accessibility) to the “great grandchildren” of the family. Like I said, the Church has made the translation available for anyone who wanted to follow along, and the non-repeating parts of the Mass were always spoken in the vernacular. Anyone who really wanted to understand could; they just had to pick up a missal.

I don’t know Latin or Greek, but I know the prayers that are still prayed at Mass in these languages, and you probably do to. “Kyrie Elieson” means “Christ have Mercy.” “Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi” means “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world…” It is a prayer that every Catholic around the world prays at least four times in every Mass, and this prayer shows that any true, faithful Catholic trusts in Jesus as savior. (Long tangent: They might not always articulate this trust in the terms that a fundamentalist Baptist in your neck of the woods would use, but that doesn’t mean that these Catholics do not accept that Christ is their savior. That’s why it is unfathomable to me that Pastor Witmer can group Catholics in general with unbelievers, Satanists, etc., as I have heard him do in multiple sermons. I trust that he is not speaking out of malice, so I can only conclude that he is almost completely ignorant about Catholicism, and I feel quite sorry for the people who believe that the things he says about Catholics are true. He, and these people, will one day have to give an account before God as to why they would believe and share such negative things about other Christians without first checking to see if they were even true. Now, remember, there will always be sinful Catholics, and there will be Catholics who show up and warm a pew each week but who don’t have a relationship with Jesus. But that doesn’t at all mean that all Catholics don’t have a relationship with Jesus. I am almost certain that Baptist have their pew warmers as well, though it would be wrong of me to judge your church by the weakest members in her!)

You might be interested to know that the great-grandchildren have made it through their “phase.” In the Catholic Church, the youth (such as myself) are beginning to tap into their roots and request the availability of the Latin Mass. We appreciate now that some doctrines can’t be communicated with accuracy in every language, we’ve seen too many translators try to “tamper” with Mass translations (often resulting in a watering-down of the faith), and we are learning to understand the Bible and the liturgy in their original languages. Many of us now realize that the great experiment of changing the Mass into the vernacular didn’t really do anything to increase our engagement (at Mass, I still see people who sit there bored and unengaged…perhaps the problem isn’t one of the language but of the human condition!). In contrast, in every Latin Mass I have attended, there is a profound sense of reverence, focus, attention, and worship.

That being said, many others prefer the Mass in the vernacular, and this is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason for Christians to be divided over options when both options are good and acceptable.

Now, returning to our story:

How would you feel (as the head of the family) if a neighbor from outside the family showed up at the door and began chastising you for trying (just as your longstanding family identity is beginning to slip away) to maintain the family language in reasonable ways?

How do you think I feel as a Catholic when people outside the “immediate” family show up at the door and chastise the Catholic Church for trying to maintain the family language in a reasonable way? The only difference is, the Catholic Church is trying to protect memories and traditions and truths that are far more valuable than those of your or my biological families.

Shameless Popery: Answering Four Common Protestant Objections to the...

Joe Heschmeyer has delivered another fantastic post, this one dealing with the papacy. Highly recommended:

Shameless Popery: Answering Four Common Protestant Objections to the...: Andre , a Protestant on his way into the Catholic Church, recently had something of an exit interview with his former pastor. His pastor m...

Christian Disunity as a Problem of the Imagination

I used to live in one of the liberal hotbeds of the Midwest, Ann Arbor, MI.  Some of my most interesting experiences there came from volunteering at the Right to Life booth at the Ann Arbor Art Fair that took place every summer.

One encounter at the Art Fair has stuck with me over the last five years since it occurred.  A man walked up and posed the following dilemma:

"Imagine that there was an IVF clinic that contained a refrigerator full off 500 embryos.  Also in the clinic was a baby playing in the back nursery.  Now, imagine that the clinic caught fire, and the firemen could only rescue the embryos or the baby.  Who would you suggest they save?"

The innocent older lady sitting next to me fell for the trap and answered, "the baby, of course."  Next thing I knew, the vindicated man had marched away before I could even begin to form a response.

Now, there are a number of problems with the dilemma posed by this gentleman.

First, the dilemma (as stated) sets up a false opposition by structuring the problem such that you can only save the baby or the embryos.

The only proper response to this problem is: shame on you for even imagining such a dreadful situation where 500 embryos are left to burn.


Second, the man's dilemma breezily accepts a situation in which 500 embryonic human beings are created without the caring, loving protection of their mothers' wombs and are stored like pieces of meat in a refrigerator...without even a comment on the atrocity of this evil.

The only proper response to this is: shame on you for even imagining a situation in which 500 human beings are left in a refrigerator without rightful protection of their mothers.


In short, I should have told the man: "You don't need an argument.  You need a spanking."


In other words, the real problem in this experience was a problem of the imagination.  This man, and many in our culture, has allowed himself to imagine as perfectly normal a situation in which 500 embryos are left to freeze or burn.

This problem of the imagination came to mind as I was reading a recent blog post by Bradley Cochran at his thoughtful and engaging blog, Theo-philogue.  On Bradley's blog, I chimed in some thoughts related to Cochran's discussion of Albert Mohler's distinction of doctrines (and, by extension, doctrinal differences) into three tiers.

Here is the relevant part of my comment:

On the flip side, if Jesus Christ is the Truth, how can we take any of these critical issues and say that it is acceptable for Christians to divide over them? What truth of Jesus Christ can be viewed as unessential? And where do Jesus's and Paul's constant prayers and commands that...we be perfectly unified allow for us to even *imagine* a situation where we allow divisions (and the "institutions of division"*** that support them)?

***John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint

It strikes me that the real problem underlying Mohler's three tiers of Christian doctrine (essential, ecclesial, unessential) is that it also breezily assumes doctrinal differences between Christians.  Even though we as Christians should be just as horrified at doctrinal differences at any level as we are at the idea of 500 embryos burning in a clinic, here, Mohler seems to just accept that the differences are going to exist.  You just have to choose: the baby or the embryos....ecclesial unity or doctrinal purity or both.

(UPDATE: In the above sentence, I'm not trying to equivocate the two sets of choices.  I AM equivocating the structure of the respective decisions, however.  That being said, it is worth noting that the doctrinal and ecclesial disunity that exists in Christianity today has allowed for ecclesial communities that accept IVF and a host of other morally problematic behaviors to exist.  The truth will always be a matter of life and death.)

I really pray that in this new millennium, we lovers of Jesus Christ will fervently pray that he wake us up and purify our imaginations.  Let us no longer passively imagine a situation that Jesus offered His passion to avoid.  Jesus hates divorce, whether it occurs between a bride and a groom or between groups of Christians and His Mystical Body, the Church.

Let us no longer imagine a situation where Christians revel in the twists and turns of doctrinal disputes, always willing to play the trump card of "well, that's not an essential doctrine, so let the arguments continue!"

And, by God's grace, let Christians return to the living, breathing authority that Jesus left us to protect those doctrines that are truly essential, so that we may not fall into schism and division over those that truly are not.

I believe that deep in many Christians' hearts, there exists the knowledge of where that authority is found...and can only be found.  It is not easy for any of us, myself most included, to submit our minds and wills to this authority that speaks in Jesus's name ("he who hears you, hears me").  But, let us pray that the Holy Spirit will grant all of us the humility and honesty to turn our minds and hearts back to the Church that Jesus himself founded.

Woe to those that know where the fullness of truth (who is Christ himself) is to be found and choose not to pursue Him.

But how great the blessing for those who abandon all (man-made traditions, family, friends) to follow the pearl of great price.

Lord Jesus, give us pure imaginations...give us your imagination...and let things be on earth as they are in heaven!

The Problem with Fundamentalism

Today, I was reflecting on a paragraph I wrote in a previous post that discussed the notion that true Christians are united on "essential" doctrines...an idea that implies that it is okay that they are disunified on unessential doctrines.  Here is the paragraph in question:

And finally, we must remember that doctrines are not like bullet points on a list.  Rather, they are like musical lines in a great symphony of truth.  Change one line, and the entire relationship of all the musical voices shifts.  Change one line, and the entire tapestry of truth is fundamentally altered.  Change one truth, and you have a different symphony.

Admittedly, having graduate degrees in music theory, this metaphor carries a certain weight and attraction in my thinking.  Theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar have also noted the "symphonic" quality of truth.  Most Christians would agree that there is a holistic nature and integrity to the truth, since Jesus himself is the truth.

Knowing that Jesus is the truth, and all that is (including truth) finds its origin in God, it is baffling to think that anyone could consider a part of divine revelation--or even knowledge that can be known through our gift of reason--to be "unessential."  Certainly, there does exist a hierarchy of truths, but that hierarchy itself, and the balance and relationships within it, all assume the importance--the necessity even--of every truth in the structure.  To think that Christians can disagree over some of these truths without effecting the entire balance and divine artistry of the entire symphonic composition is to say that certain Biblical truths are unnecessary, inconsequential, superfluous, and ultimately disconnected from the entire integrated design that is the truth of Christ.  In other words, revealed truths are either essential or not even worth talking about...and certainly not worth dividing churches over.

Yet, every time I speak with a Baptist about the ecclesial and doctrinal divisions within non-Catholic Christianity (and even Baptist Christianity), I am told that "true Christians agree on the essentials."

All of this makes me think that the problem with fundamentalism is that it is not fundamental enough.

This is not meant to knock fundamentalists, many of whom are sincere in upholding the fundamental truths of Christianity.  These fundamentalists are to be commended and admired in their fidelity and commitment to Christ.

This is to say, however, that fundamentalists can not feel completely at home in their fundamentalism until they find their home in the Catholic Church, in whom the fullness of truth subsists...and through whom the whole of Christian truth is preserved and taught.  The fullness of truth, who is Christ himself, is fundamental, essential, and as beautiful a symphony as has ever been conceived.

Come and see!  This truth has been preserved by God's grace through His Bride, who finds its visible head and leadership in the teaching authority (the Pope and bishops in union with him) of the Catholic Church.

Response to Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE) Street Evangelists, Part 11 of 24

This is the eleventh part of a 24-part series of responses to a street evangelist I met from Lighthouse Baptist Church (Newark, DE). Please click here to see the first post, which contains a set of links by topic to all the posts in the series.

11.  The Issue of Leavened vs. Unleavened Bread.  When asked about this, I said that we use unleavened bread.  We do so because that is what Jesus used at the Last Supper.  Also, the very idea of “breaking bread” supports the notion that the early Christians favored unleavened bread, since this was the type of bread that “broke.”  Thus, using leavened bread is a practice (a small-t tradition) that we follow in the Western wing of the Catholic Church.  A handful of Eastern Catholics, and many Orthodox Christians, use leavened bread.  Here is an article that goes into the subject in a bit more detail.

All that being said, I just don't see how this issue constitutes legitimate grounds for division between Christians.  Can anyone add further insight to this problem?

(Woo hoo for a short answer!)

Shameless Popery: The Dog That Didn't Bark: Eucharistic Theology in ...

Shameless Popery: The Dog That Didn't Bark: Eucharistic Theology in ...: In the Sherlock Holmes story “Silver Blaze,” involving the disappearance of a thoroughbred racehorse, Holmes points out a major clue...

>>>>>

Dear readers:

I encourage you all to take a moment to check out Joe Heschmeyer's fine blog. I'll be posting links to some of his posts here on my blog occasionally, as they offer a strong case for the claims of the Catholic Church as well as an equally compelling model of how to share the truth in a loving manner.