We dealt with topics such as the Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox split, Hitler and the Jews and Pius XII and the Catholic Church, and Vatican II.
Here's the player:
Or, if the player doesn't work for you, you can listen or download the audio files here:
http://www.archive.org/details/CatholicHeritagePresentation7
There were no notes prepared for this presentation.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Sixth Catholic History and Heritage Presentation: Vatican II and its turbulent wake
The full title and subtitle of this presentation was:
A rather provocative title, I guess. Then again, we live in provocative times! Listen to the whole presentation online (my apologies for taking so long to get it posted):
Don't forget you can toggle between part 1 and part 2 with the two little triangles facing the lines right and left.
As usual, if the embedded player doesn't work for you, you can download the original MP3 files at:
http://www.archive.org/details/CatholicHeitagePresentation6 (Uhm . . . yeah, there's a typo in the address, but it's too much of a hassle to try to change it on that site.)
And, of course, you can view and download the text of the notes, in PDF format, here. (This week I was not able to put any links for further information into the notes, but you can find a lot just by searching Google or Wikipedia with the obvious keywords.)
The reason why I was late in getting this online is that on Wednesday morning I received the 2011 price quotes from our Istanbul tour agency for the Early Christian World Pilgrimage, Orion-Tour, and have spent most of my spare time of the last few days putting together the initial publicity for the Pilgrimage in the form of a bulletin insert/letter for this weekend. You can see that letter here, and you will be able to keep up to date on the Pilgrimage news and itinerary at my Pilgrimage blogsite, http://ecwpilgrimage.org.
If you are looking for the past presentations, scroll through the list or past blogpost titles on the sidebar to the right, and you'll find them.
Vatican II and its turbulent wake: Reform and Resourcement; controversy and conflict
Who would have guessed what would blow in that open window?
Vatican II: fruit of the Spirit or spawn of Satan? And . . . who cares?
A rather provocative title, I guess. Then again, we live in provocative times! Listen to the whole presentation online (my apologies for taking so long to get it posted):
Don't forget you can toggle between part 1 and part 2 with the two little triangles facing the lines right and left.
As usual, if the embedded player doesn't work for you, you can download the original MP3 files at:
http://www.archive.org/details/CatholicHeitagePresentation6 (Uhm . . . yeah, there's a typo in the address, but it's too much of a hassle to try to change it on that site.)
And, of course, you can view and download the text of the notes, in PDF format, here. (This week I was not able to put any links for further information into the notes, but you can find a lot just by searching Google or Wikipedia with the obvious keywords.)
The reason why I was late in getting this online is that on Wednesday morning I received the 2011 price quotes from our Istanbul tour agency for the Early Christian World Pilgrimage, Orion-Tour, and have spent most of my spare time of the last few days putting together the initial publicity for the Pilgrimage in the form of a bulletin insert/letter for this weekend. You can see that letter here, and you will be able to keep up to date on the Pilgrimage news and itinerary at my Pilgrimage blogsite, http://ecwpilgrimage.org.
If you are looking for the past presentations, scroll through the list or past blogpost titles on the sidebar to the right, and you'll find them.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Solemnity of Our Lady of the Assumption
August 15 is my most favorite day of the year -- well, one of them at least. Having been pastor of Our Lady of the Assumption parish in Claremont for 15 years before coming to Good shepherd in Beverly Hills, I had many occasions and lots of time to reflect on the meaning of this feast for us, Catholic Christians today. I tried to embody some of that in my homily today, which you can listen to here:
Or you can access it at this web address (click here).
Here's what I wrote on the Good Shepherd bulletin cover:
That tapestry certainly represents the triumph and glory that we often associate with the Assumption. As I note in my homily, however, Eastern Christianity has a very different perspective on this same feast, and they traditionally call it the "Dormition of Mary." (That name is actually older than the "assumption.") Compare the two images, which I reflect on in my homily, and see which one speaks most deeply to you. (This image is in the Church of St. Savior in Chora [Kariye Museum] in Istanbul, and one of a magnificent series of photos of Turkey by Dutch photographer Dick Osseman, freely available on the web.)
Or you can access it at this web address (click here).
This image of Mary taken into heaven is the tapestry that graces Our Lady of Assumption Church in Claremont, where I served fifteen years before coming here to Good Shepherd. The feast we are celebrating today remains very dear to me, as it is to all Catholics, celebrating the entry of Mary into the same glory that is promised to us. This beautiful creation is the work of the Barillet Studios of Paris in the early 1950s. As our parishes are united in Christ and his holy Mother, I ask your prayers for the people of the OLA parish community as we celebrate their patronal feast. (Photo by Fr. Tom Welbers)
That tapestry certainly represents the triumph and glory that we often associate with the Assumption. As I note in my homily, however, Eastern Christianity has a very different perspective on this same feast, and they traditionally call it the "Dormition of Mary." (That name is actually older than the "assumption.") Compare the two images, which I reflect on in my homily, and see which one speaks most deeply to you. (This image is in the Church of St. Savior in Chora [Kariye Museum] in Istanbul, and one of a magnificent series of photos of Turkey by Dutch photographer Dick Osseman, freely available on the web.)
What Does the Pope Have to Do with Our Being Catholic?
Some would say nothing; others would say everything. Both sides are right . . . and wrong.
Hey, one of the fundamental requirements for being Catholic, as well as Christian -- as well as human, for that matter -- is to make friends with paradox. Life is not a neat and tidy little package, and there's a lot of apparent contradictions that are simply beyond our power to resolve to our satisfaction. Like the "core belief" we started with a few weeks ago, the Trinity -- one God, three Persons -- a paradox. And the Incarnation, Christ as fully God and fully human -- a paradox. And the Eucharist -- all the observable elements of nature, bread and wine, remain, but the substance, the underlying reality, is truly changed and becomes the body and blood of Christ -- a paradox. So, why shouldn't the Pope be a paradox?
Last week I ventured the opinion that the core beliefs of Catholic faith "boil down to just two: the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome." Then I discussed the "Real Presence." Some might say that many Protestant churches, including Anglicans/Episcopalians, celebrate the Eucharist and have a belief similar to ours. True, but none of them meet the criteria that we hold are essential for the complete reality (or validity) of the Eucharist as we understand and believe. That's a loaded statement on an ecumenically sensitive issue, and it needs to be unpacked and nuanced. But that's for another time. Of course, the place of the Pope in the Church is another sensitive issue, and that's the concern of this little essay.
First we need to be clear that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, just like any other bishop is bishop of a particular local church, whether Los Angeles or Las Vegas or Talahassee or Talibon . . . or wherever. The Pope's relationship -- personal or official -- with other bishops, or with all Catholics worldwide, is not the heart of the issue. It's the relationship of the local Church (or diocese) of Rome with other local churches (dioceses). Because St. Peter, whose name means "rock," was singled out for a foundational role among the gathered disciples (see Matthew 16:18 -- the word "church" etymologically means "the people called together") and because tradition has it that he was the first Bishop of Rome, the same tradition has held that the Church of Rome, and therefore its bishop, has a unique relationship of both honor and authority among all the other churches and their bishops. We call this relationship primacy.
Christianity, from the age of the Apostles, has placed an essential value on unity and continuity, that is, the various local churches are authenticated both by their unity with one another, expressed in mutual recognition by the bishops of one another's legitimacy, and their continuity with the faith-community of the Apostles (i.e., the early Church) expressed through what is called "apostolic succession." As important as an individual's, or even a group's, personal faith truly is, the communal values of unity and continuity are more essential to the identity of the Church. Otherwise, the church becomes a conglomeration of individualistic do-it-yourselfers.
Apostolic succession is a fundamental criterion for a local church to be authentically Catholic. There must be an unbroken line of authority, through ordination, from the beginning down to our own day, and an essential element of that "unbroken line" is union with the local Church of Rome. Thus our second "core belief," without which we are not Catholic, can be simply labeled "apostolic succession," which must include organic union of all local churches with the Church of Rome.
What happened to Christians throughout the centuries to produce the disunity and fragmentation we experience today? First of all, the various Orthodox Churches have maintained apostolic succession and valid ordinations of bishops and priests, and therefore a valid celebration of the Eucharist, but split from unity with the Church of Rome in 1054. This was for a variety of tragically unfortunate and complex historical reasons, and sadly the division is still a long way from being healed. The Protestants (including Anglicans), for a variety of reasons, many of which legitimately addressed real abuses and even theological problems within the Catholic Church, not only broke the continuity of apostolic succession but also repudiated union with Rome. And that twofold fracture seems also a long way from healing.
Needless to say, both Orthodox and Protestant Christians would express this division differently, and would not see our core beliefs in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and Primacy of the Bishop of Rome to be as central as we do. I call these "core beliefs" of Catholic faith simply because these pinpoint the heart of the difference between Catholic faith and all other Christian faiths. On the one hand, while there are undoubtedly many reasons why people choose to be or remain Catholic, these two core beliefs have to be at the center.
Obviously much more can (and must) be said. And I suspect what I have written over the past few weeks may raise more questions (and perhaps objections) than are answered. I hope, however, that, in trying to be concise, I have also been relatively clear. The more I have studied and and reflected in recent years, the more it seems to me that these four core beliefs -- two generically Christian and two specifically Catholic -- serve as hooks on which all other elements of our faith, from the smallest to the greatest, can be hung. Or to change analogies, they serve as the four foundational pillars, rising up from the One Foundation which is Jesus Christ himself, of who and what we are as Catholic Church.
May God continue to bless you and all those you love. I love you.
Fr. Tom Welbers
P.S. You might be inclined to point out my inconsistency in capitalization of Church/church and Bishop/bishop. If you look closely, I have tried to capitalize them only when referring to a particular church or bishop, e.g. "the Bishop of the local Church of Fresno," but not when they are used generically, "a bishop in his own local church."
P.P.S. This Monday, August 16, is the last of six scheduled presentations on "the History and Heritage of our Faith" at 7:00 pm in the parish hall. Our topic will move us from the twentieth century into the twenty-first, examining first the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s, and the turbulent years following it, up to today. The title, "Reform and Resourcement; Controversy and Conflict", I think sums it up pretty well. (Yeah, I like parallel contrasts and alliteration.) However, because I was not able to deal with questions at the time of the presentations, I've been asked to do another session just to deal with questions that were raised. So, there will be an additional session, devoted exclusively to questions and answers, the following Monday, same time and same place. I'm calling this session, "Your turn . . . have at Fr. Tom!" Don't forget that all the lectures and the notes are available online at http://tomwelbers.net. Also, new information on the 2011 Early Christian World Pilgrimage to Turkey, April 25 to May 14, 2011, is continually being posted at http://ecwpilgrimage.org. There is some very good news about how to get there and back! Check it out.
Hey, one of the fundamental requirements for being Catholic, as well as Christian -- as well as human, for that matter -- is to make friends with paradox. Life is not a neat and tidy little package, and there's a lot of apparent contradictions that are simply beyond our power to resolve to our satisfaction. Like the "core belief" we started with a few weeks ago, the Trinity -- one God, three Persons -- a paradox. And the Incarnation, Christ as fully God and fully human -- a paradox. And the Eucharist -- all the observable elements of nature, bread and wine, remain, but the substance, the underlying reality, is truly changed and becomes the body and blood of Christ -- a paradox. So, why shouldn't the Pope be a paradox?
Last week I ventured the opinion that the core beliefs of Catholic faith "boil down to just two: the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome." Then I discussed the "Real Presence." Some might say that many Protestant churches, including Anglicans/Episcopalians, celebrate the Eucharist and have a belief similar to ours. True, but none of them meet the criteria that we hold are essential for the complete reality (or validity) of the Eucharist as we understand and believe. That's a loaded statement on an ecumenically sensitive issue, and it needs to be unpacked and nuanced. But that's for another time. Of course, the place of the Pope in the Church is another sensitive issue, and that's the concern of this little essay.
First we need to be clear that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, just like any other bishop is bishop of a particular local church, whether Los Angeles or Las Vegas or Talahassee or Talibon . . . or wherever. The Pope's relationship -- personal or official -- with other bishops, or with all Catholics worldwide, is not the heart of the issue. It's the relationship of the local Church (or diocese) of Rome with other local churches (dioceses). Because St. Peter, whose name means "rock," was singled out for a foundational role among the gathered disciples (see Matthew 16:18 -- the word "church" etymologically means "the people called together") and because tradition has it that he was the first Bishop of Rome, the same tradition has held that the Church of Rome, and therefore its bishop, has a unique relationship of both honor and authority among all the other churches and their bishops. We call this relationship primacy.
Christianity, from the age of the Apostles, has placed an essential value on unity and continuity, that is, the various local churches are authenticated both by their unity with one another, expressed in mutual recognition by the bishops of one another's legitimacy, and their continuity with the faith-community of the Apostles (i.e., the early Church) expressed through what is called "apostolic succession." As important as an individual's, or even a group's, personal faith truly is, the communal values of unity and continuity are more essential to the identity of the Church. Otherwise, the church becomes a conglomeration of individualistic do-it-yourselfers.
Apostolic succession is a fundamental criterion for a local church to be authentically Catholic. There must be an unbroken line of authority, through ordination, from the beginning down to our own day, and an essential element of that "unbroken line" is union with the local Church of Rome. Thus our second "core belief," without which we are not Catholic, can be simply labeled "apostolic succession," which must include organic union of all local churches with the Church of Rome.
What happened to Christians throughout the centuries to produce the disunity and fragmentation we experience today? First of all, the various Orthodox Churches have maintained apostolic succession and valid ordinations of bishops and priests, and therefore a valid celebration of the Eucharist, but split from unity with the Church of Rome in 1054. This was for a variety of tragically unfortunate and complex historical reasons, and sadly the division is still a long way from being healed. The Protestants (including Anglicans), for a variety of reasons, many of which legitimately addressed real abuses and even theological problems within the Catholic Church, not only broke the continuity of apostolic succession but also repudiated union with Rome. And that twofold fracture seems also a long way from healing.
Needless to say, both Orthodox and Protestant Christians would express this division differently, and would not see our core beliefs in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and Primacy of the Bishop of Rome to be as central as we do. I call these "core beliefs" of Catholic faith simply because these pinpoint the heart of the difference between Catholic faith and all other Christian faiths. On the one hand, while there are undoubtedly many reasons why people choose to be or remain Catholic, these two core beliefs have to be at the center.
Obviously much more can (and must) be said. And I suspect what I have written over the past few weeks may raise more questions (and perhaps objections) than are answered. I hope, however, that, in trying to be concise, I have also been relatively clear. The more I have studied and and reflected in recent years, the more it seems to me that these four core beliefs -- two generically Christian and two specifically Catholic -- serve as hooks on which all other elements of our faith, from the smallest to the greatest, can be hung. Or to change analogies, they serve as the four foundational pillars, rising up from the One Foundation which is Jesus Christ himself, of who and what we are as Catholic Church.
May God continue to bless you and all those you love. I love you.
Fr. Tom Welbers
P.S. You might be inclined to point out my inconsistency in capitalization of Church/church and Bishop/bishop. If you look closely, I have tried to capitalize them only when referring to a particular church or bishop, e.g. "the Bishop of the local Church of Fresno," but not when they are used generically, "a bishop in his own local church."
P.P.S. This Monday, August 16, is the last of six scheduled presentations on "the History and Heritage of our Faith" at 7:00 pm in the parish hall. Our topic will move us from the twentieth century into the twenty-first, examining first the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s, and the turbulent years following it, up to today. The title, "Reform and Resourcement; Controversy and Conflict", I think sums it up pretty well. (Yeah, I like parallel contrasts and alliteration.) However, because I was not able to deal with questions at the time of the presentations, I've been asked to do another session just to deal with questions that were raised. So, there will be an additional session, devoted exclusively to questions and answers, the following Monday, same time and same place. I'm calling this session, "Your turn . . . have at Fr. Tom!" Don't forget that all the lectures and the notes are available online at http://tomwelbers.net. Also, new information on the 2011 Early Christian World Pilgrimage to Turkey, April 25 to May 14, 2011, is continually being posted at http://ecwpilgrimage.org. There is some very good news about how to get there and back! Check it out.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Fifth Catholic History and Heritage Presentation: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries
Click on the "play" button (the triangle pointing right on the left side of the bar) to listen.
Or if the embedded player doesn't work in your browser, or if you would like to download the presentation in MP3 files, go directly to the site:
http://www.archive.org/details/CatholicHeritagePresentation5
Here are the notes, filled with many links to further background material.
A bridge across the years:
Here's the very first motion picture made of a pope -- Pope Leo XII in 1896. The soundtrack contains the first and only sound recording (an acoustical wax cylinder) of him singing "Ave Maria" in 1903, shortly before he died.
This is a brief clip of Pope Benedict XV, the only known motion picture footage of him, I think.
And here's Bishop Sheen on the 1950s TV Program, "What's My Line?"
Or if the embedded player doesn't work in your browser, or if you would like to download the presentation in MP3 files, go directly to the site:
http://www.archive.org/details/CatholicHeritagePresentation5
Here are the notes, filled with many links to further background material.
A bridge across the years:
Here's the very first motion picture made of a pope -- Pope Leo XII in 1896. The soundtrack contains the first and only sound recording (an acoustical wax cylinder) of him singing "Ave Maria" in 1903, shortly before he died.
This is a brief clip of Pope Benedict XV, the only known motion picture footage of him, I think.
And here's Bishop Sheen on the 1950s TV Program, "What's My Line?"
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Why Be Catholic?
That's the core question that every Catholic must ask. It is not enough just to ride along on some kind of "default" or "cultural" Catholicism -- "I'm Catholic because I was 'born' Catholic." Nor, although this motivation is important, is enough to be Catholic because of friendliness, hospitality, good feelings, or a sense of personal fulfillment. Important, but not the "core," the center that I'm trying to identify in this little series of bulletin essays.
If the Trinity and the Incarnation are the core beliefs of Christianity, then what are the specifically core beliefs of Catholic faith, the particular beliefs that distinguish Catholic faith from the rest of Christianity? The basic question here is, Why be Catholic, anyway? It's an important question when many people, including myself, might find some very appealing, even tempting, attractions in other forms of Christianity.
It seems to me that the core beliefs of Catholic faith also boil down to just two: the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. As I've already discussed, there's a lot more that's very important to being Christian and to being Catholic than just the core beliefs. But all the rest is somehow corollary to or derived from the core belief. I'm not trying to give here a catechism or a summary of our faith; I'm trying to identify the nucleus, the very center. It's a bit like scientists trying to discover the massively powerful object around which our entire galaxy revolves, although the name "black hole" doesn't express its real nature very well.
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not something that the Church, or its teachers and leaders, "invented" somewhere along the line. It comes solely from taking Jesus Christ seriously in the New Testament. Three of the four Gospels recount Jesus at the Last Supper saying essentially, "This is my body . . . this is my blood." St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, is actually the first witness to these words, predating the earliest Gospel by at least twenty years. The Gospel of John does not record these words, but in Chapter 6 gives a long discourse of Jesus in which he emphasizes, in unmistakable words, that one must eat his body and drink his blood in order to have life -- the life that he has come to give.
Throughout the centuries, authentic Catholic faith has discovered many layers of meaning in these words, but had never departed from an understanding that Jesus meant exactly what he said.
The Orthodox Churches share with us this belief in its full integrity. While Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII also tried to hold on to essentially the same faith in the Real Presence of Christ, the churches they spawned, as they crumbled into fragments, pretty much let go of this belief, and most came to describe the Eucharist in merely symbolic terms, and some no longer even saw the Lord's Supper as an important part of Christian life and worship.
It's important for us to note that our Catholic faith does not deny that the bread and wine are symbols of Christ's presence and activity in the Eucharist. But there's much more to it, and we cannot deny the underlying reality that is expressed in symbol. I have not used the word "transsubstantiation," which the Church affirms accurately describes the process by which the Eucharist happens. I find the word problematic because most of the people who use it today don't understand it, and think it'[s synonymous with "physically present." It's not. And I'm in agreement with the St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent on this point.
Obviously so much more could be said about the Eucharist, but not here and now.
The second core Catholic belief, the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, will have to wait until next week for further treatment because I'm out of space.
I love you,
Fr. Tom Welbers
P.S. Please note that the fifth of my presentations on "the History and Heritage of Our Faith" will be given this Monday at 7:00 pm in the parish Hall. The topic will be "Saints and Sinners: 19th and 20th century experience on being Catholic and catholic, Christian and human." You can listen to all the past lectures (and view the notes) at http://tomwelbers.net. I also have the complete itinerary for the 2011 Early Christian World Pilgrimage to Turkey after next Easter online at http://ecwpilgrimage.org.
If the Trinity and the Incarnation are the core beliefs of Christianity, then what are the specifically core beliefs of Catholic faith, the particular beliefs that distinguish Catholic faith from the rest of Christianity? The basic question here is, Why be Catholic, anyway? It's an important question when many people, including myself, might find some very appealing, even tempting, attractions in other forms of Christianity.
It seems to me that the core beliefs of Catholic faith also boil down to just two: the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. As I've already discussed, there's a lot more that's very important to being Christian and to being Catholic than just the core beliefs. But all the rest is somehow corollary to or derived from the core belief. I'm not trying to give here a catechism or a summary of our faith; I'm trying to identify the nucleus, the very center. It's a bit like scientists trying to discover the massively powerful object around which our entire galaxy revolves, although the name "black hole" doesn't express its real nature very well.
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not something that the Church, or its teachers and leaders, "invented" somewhere along the line. It comes solely from taking Jesus Christ seriously in the New Testament. Three of the four Gospels recount Jesus at the Last Supper saying essentially, "This is my body . . . this is my blood." St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, is actually the first witness to these words, predating the earliest Gospel by at least twenty years. The Gospel of John does not record these words, but in Chapter 6 gives a long discourse of Jesus in which he emphasizes, in unmistakable words, that one must eat his body and drink his blood in order to have life -- the life that he has come to give.
Throughout the centuries, authentic Catholic faith has discovered many layers of meaning in these words, but had never departed from an understanding that Jesus meant exactly what he said.
The Orthodox Churches share with us this belief in its full integrity. While Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII also tried to hold on to essentially the same faith in the Real Presence of Christ, the churches they spawned, as they crumbled into fragments, pretty much let go of this belief, and most came to describe the Eucharist in merely symbolic terms, and some no longer even saw the Lord's Supper as an important part of Christian life and worship.
It's important for us to note that our Catholic faith does not deny that the bread and wine are symbols of Christ's presence and activity in the Eucharist. But there's much more to it, and we cannot deny the underlying reality that is expressed in symbol. I have not used the word "transsubstantiation," which the Church affirms accurately describes the process by which the Eucharist happens. I find the word problematic because most of the people who use it today don't understand it, and think it'[s synonymous with "physically present." It's not. And I'm in agreement with the St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent on this point.
Obviously so much more could be said about the Eucharist, but not here and now.
The second core Catholic belief, the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, will have to wait until next week for further treatment because I'm out of space.
I love you,
Fr. Tom Welbers
P.S. Please note that the fifth of my presentations on "the History and Heritage of Our Faith" will be given this Monday at 7:00 pm in the parish Hall. The topic will be "Saints and Sinners: 19th and 20th century experience on being Catholic and catholic, Christian and human." You can listen to all the past lectures (and view the notes) at http://tomwelbers.net. I also have the complete itinerary for the 2011 Early Christian World Pilgrimage to Turkey after next Easter online at http://ecwpilgrimage.org.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Fourth Catholic Heritage and History Presentation: The Reformers Are Coming!
. . . and they keep on coming. Late Middle Ages, religious orders, the Inquisition, the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent, the Jesuits (especially Ignatius and Matteo Ricci), the Enlightenment, and revolutionary nationalism are all topics that we explore in this presentation.
In case your browser doesn't like the embedded player, or if you want to download it as MP3 files, here's the link:
http://www.archive.org/details/CatholicHeritagePresentation4
The notes and the PowerPoint slides I used. (Both are in PDF files.)
See the "Blog Archive" menu on the sidebar to the right for the previous presentations.
In case your browser doesn't like the embedded player, or if you want to download it as MP3 files, here's the link:
http://www.archive.org/details/CatholicHeritagePresentation4
The notes and the PowerPoint slides I used. (Both are in PDF files.)
See the "Blog Archive" menu on the sidebar to the right for the previous presentations.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
The Heart of What We Believe as Christians
(This is my "Pastor's Reflection" on Page Two of Good Shepherd Church Bulletin, August 1, 2010.)
After two weeks of tantalizing you with background reflections, I must now answer my own question, What are our "core beliefs" as Christians? If you want to know why I believe this is important, please review the last two weeks' bulletins.
There are only two doctrines or articles of faith that specifically make us Christian and distinguish our faith from all non-Christian religions. In the shorthand of theological jargon, they are the Trinity and the Incarnation. If you believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, you are a Christian; if you don't, you're not. Well, that's easy enough to say, but what does it mean?
Basically, the doctrine of the Trinity unites two apparently contradictory statements: there is one God, (not three), but the one God is three distinct persons, (not one). This is such a commonplace teaching, drilled into many of us from early childhood, that we often don't realize just how strange and paradoxical it is. If, as children, we questioned it, we were silenced by some kind of statement as, "It's a mystery, and so we can't understand it; we just have to believe it." That may be enough for a child's faith, although I was never convinced by it; it certainly isn't enough for an adult faith.
If the Bible is the source of our faith, we may want to ask, Where is it in the Bible? It may come as a surprise to find out that the word "trinity" never once appears in the Bible, nor does it anywhere explicitly say that there are three persons in one God. So why do we believe this, and how did we come to express this belief in those words?
First, Jesus was a Jew, and the Jews, unique among all the peoples of the ancient world three thousand years ago, came to understand that there is one God who is Lord of all, rather than many gods, each controlling some aspect of nature or giving special protection to a particular city or nation. Furthermore, the Jews had an awareness throughout their history that this one God had entered into a special relationship with them in a mutual covenant with certain obligations and promises. They saw this as God's revelation of himself to them, and the writings of the Bible were inspired documents of His revelations and the people's living response to it in their history.
The New Testament presents Jesus to us as viewed through the experience of His first disciples and the communities drawn together by them around this faith in Jesus. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is presented as relating Himself with this one God of the Jewish covenant in two particular ways. Frequently He identifies Himself with God, doing His own things that only God can do, such as forgiving sins. But He also speaks of this one God in distinct but intimate terms, referring to God as Father and Himself as Son. But the New Testament also speaks of another one who is active with the power of God, but who is not the Son, but continues and fulfills the work of the Son -- the Holy Spirit.
Throughout the first seven centuries of the Church, amid much controversy, the Church leaders gradually defined ways of coming to terms with the "raw data" of the New Testament, affirming both that there could be only one God, but that three distinct Divine Persons can be identified, each of whom is not the other, each of whom is fully God, but there is one God alone, not three. The Trinity.
Similarly, during those early centuries, the Church struggled with what Jesus was recorded as saying about Himself. The Councils came to the conclusion that anything short of affirming that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human, without some kind of lessening or accommodation of one or the other, does not do justice to what the inspired word of Scripture says. This is the Incarnation.
We can't answer the question, Why does God or Jesus have to be this way? Our exploration has to start with accepting the fact that this is the way it is. Then, we can explore, and this is the heart of theology's task, why God might have revealed Himself to us this way, and what it means for us.
I think we can be sure of this: the Trinity and the Incarnation, as the core Christian beliefs, aren't just God "showing off" how wonderful He is. There has to be a vital meaning in it for us. For openers, you might want to ask yourself, So what? What difference does faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation mean to me? Here's a hint, keep that question in mind from now on as you are listening to and participating in the prayers and readings of the Mass.
If the Trinity and Incarnation are the core beliefs of Christians, what makes our faith as Catholics unique and distinct from other Christians? What are our specifically Catholic core beliefs? Again there are two of them. It's important to know and understand them because there are many other ways of being Christian, some of them easier and even,, perhaps, more appealing than the Catholic Church. We need to ask, and try to answer, the question, Why be Catholic? Hand in hand with that question is another: Is it worth it?
Catholic core beliefs . . . next week.
I love you,
Fr. Tom Welbers
After two weeks of tantalizing you with background reflections, I must now answer my own question, What are our "core beliefs" as Christians? If you want to know why I believe this is important, please review the last two weeks' bulletins.
There are only two doctrines or articles of faith that specifically make us Christian and distinguish our faith from all non-Christian religions. In the shorthand of theological jargon, they are the Trinity and the Incarnation. If you believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, you are a Christian; if you don't, you're not. Well, that's easy enough to say, but what does it mean?
Basically, the doctrine of the Trinity unites two apparently contradictory statements: there is one God, (not three), but the one God is three distinct persons, (not one). This is such a commonplace teaching, drilled into many of us from early childhood, that we often don't realize just how strange and paradoxical it is. If, as children, we questioned it, we were silenced by some kind of statement as, "It's a mystery, and so we can't understand it; we just have to believe it." That may be enough for a child's faith, although I was never convinced by it; it certainly isn't enough for an adult faith.
If the Bible is the source of our faith, we may want to ask, Where is it in the Bible? It may come as a surprise to find out that the word "trinity" never once appears in the Bible, nor does it anywhere explicitly say that there are three persons in one God. So why do we believe this, and how did we come to express this belief in those words?
First, Jesus was a Jew, and the Jews, unique among all the peoples of the ancient world three thousand years ago, came to understand that there is one God who is Lord of all, rather than many gods, each controlling some aspect of nature or giving special protection to a particular city or nation. Furthermore, the Jews had an awareness throughout their history that this one God had entered into a special relationship with them in a mutual covenant with certain obligations and promises. They saw this as God's revelation of himself to them, and the writings of the Bible were inspired documents of His revelations and the people's living response to it in their history.
The New Testament presents Jesus to us as viewed through the experience of His first disciples and the communities drawn together by them around this faith in Jesus. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is presented as relating Himself with this one God of the Jewish covenant in two particular ways. Frequently He identifies Himself with God, doing His own things that only God can do, such as forgiving sins. But He also speaks of this one God in distinct but intimate terms, referring to God as Father and Himself as Son. But the New Testament also speaks of another one who is active with the power of God, but who is not the Son, but continues and fulfills the work of the Son -- the Holy Spirit.
Throughout the first seven centuries of the Church, amid much controversy, the Church leaders gradually defined ways of coming to terms with the "raw data" of the New Testament, affirming both that there could be only one God, but that three distinct Divine Persons can be identified, each of whom is not the other, each of whom is fully God, but there is one God alone, not three. The Trinity.
Similarly, during those early centuries, the Church struggled with what Jesus was recorded as saying about Himself. The Councils came to the conclusion that anything short of affirming that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human, without some kind of lessening or accommodation of one or the other, does not do justice to what the inspired word of Scripture says. This is the Incarnation.
We can't answer the question, Why does God or Jesus have to be this way? Our exploration has to start with accepting the fact that this is the way it is. Then, we can explore, and this is the heart of theology's task, why God might have revealed Himself to us this way, and what it means for us.
I think we can be sure of this: the Trinity and the Incarnation, as the core Christian beliefs, aren't just God "showing off" how wonderful He is. There has to be a vital meaning in it for us. For openers, you might want to ask yourself, So what? What difference does faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation mean to me? Here's a hint, keep that question in mind from now on as you are listening to and participating in the prayers and readings of the Mass.
If the Trinity and Incarnation are the core beliefs of Christians, what makes our faith as Catholics unique and distinct from other Christians? What are our specifically Catholic core beliefs? Again there are two of them. It's important to know and understand them because there are many other ways of being Christian, some of them easier and even,, perhaps, more appealing than the Catholic Church. We need to ask, and try to answer, the question, Why be Catholic? Hand in hand with that question is another: Is it worth it?
Catholic core beliefs . . . next week.
I love you,
Fr. Tom Welbers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
