I have been slow reading (more about that later) the opening couple of chapters (Habit and Task of Theology) of Aidan Nichols’ majestic work The Shape of Catholic Theology.
In the opening chapter Nichols examines the relationship between the fides quae (objective) and fides qua (subjective). He points out that the theologian is one who strikes a balance between the two: the theologian neither over-emphasizes nor under-values either. (Of course, the same could be said about any person who is in a relationship with God!) The theologian is one who is able to enter into God’s mystery in an intimate way and so communicate that inwardness of divine revelation to others(17).
It made me think: can we really ever have a fides quae without some form of magisterium?? The doctrine of justification by faith alone assumes the right object of my personal faith. My faith that a particular sporting team will eventually have a successful season has no immediate impact on my relationship with God however hard felt that faith might be. It is the object, in the above example, that is invalid. Yet who decides that the object is correct? Does not the very nature of an object require an external verification?
You all know I have a thing about adjectives that are used in general theological discussion. Today I stumbled upon the following from the United Episcopal Church of North America:
Biblically Sound, Sacramentally Orthodox, Apostolically Valid
I’ll admit that my brain has been on holidays but I have no clue what the above means. But I am completely bamboozled by the last one: Apostolically Valid. Is there another form of validity?? Someone care to explain??
Having spent last night at a Parent Information Session on the Laptop Program(me) that had a constant refrain – Computers make us want to learn more and make your kids smarter – I wonder if computers actually have made us smarter?!?!
Scene 1: Lutheran Baptism
We went to a Lutheran baptism this Sunday. (We went to the Vigil Mass on Saturday, in case you were wondering.) The service was very nice, especially the music. The sermon was (surprisingly) good. Alas, a little disembodied: is it really the Gospel of Jesus that challenges us or Jesus himself??
The liturgy was classical Western in shape and was done within the established rite of the Lutheran Church of Australia. The Baptismal Rite replaced the Penitential Rite at the start of the service – that is, it followed the Sign of the Cross – and included the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. These two were then omitted in the service – that is, there was no Creed after the Sermon, nor was the Lord’s Prayer said during the Eucharistic Liturgy.
Scene 2: Perpetual Rosary
Our parish had a Perpetual Rosary on the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. For three hours before Mass, parishioners gathered before the Blessed Sacrament to pray for the defeat of the Abortion Law Reform Bill.
I admit that I have not spent that amount of time on my knees for many years. Our kids joined us for the last hour. The oldest three kneeled for the whole hour to say the Rosary. (No 2 is especially effected by it all!) I have not been that effected by a devotion for a while. (The last time was when I was exposed to the Divine Mercy Chaplet.) After it was all over I wanted it to start again.
The two could not be further apart. I admit that the first created a emotional response more to do with our particular past rather than any theological problems. But it did make me wonder: is repetition fundamentally wrong?? Our kids seems to enjoy and flourish in a daily routine that is largely based on repetition – they have the same breakfast, we say our prayers together in the evening, etc. No 4 is especially attached to routine and repetition.
One may quote Matthew 6:7 (KJV) in this connection: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. To my simple reading (I am no Scripture scholar and I have not looked at the Greek) the end defines the act as wrong not vice versa. (And, just stating the obvious, I do not think any Catholic every things that the number of Rosaries makes the prayer worthy but rather the attitude.)
So I ask again: is repetition fundamentally wrong in a religious context??
Faith is a personal act – the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone.
You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. the believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others. Our love for Jesus and for our neighbour impels us to speak to others about our faith. Each believer is thus a link in the great chain of believers. I cannot believe without being carried by the faith of others, and by my faith I help support others in the faith.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 166.
From Ratzinger’s Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI by Tracey Rowland.
In addition to those who attack the whole notion of Tradition there are those who to some degree accept it but who do not allow it to develop organically. They want to cut off its validity at some particular point. Here he [Ratzinger] speaks of the problem of liberal and conservative archeologisms. For liberals it is often a case of no longer being satisfied with limiting Tradition to what can be dredged out of the Scriptures. They regard with suspicion everything that comes after St Paul. For traditionalists the cut-off is often the papacy of Pius X (1905-1914), or even the Council of Trent (1545-1563). (55)
From the General Audience: 3 September 2008 (with emphases and comment).
Today’s catechesis focuses on Saint Paul’s conversion. In the Acts of the Apostles, Saint Luke recounts for us the dramatic episode on the road to Damascus which transformed Paul from a fierce persecutor of the Church into a zealous evangelizer. In his own letters, Paul describes his experience not so much in terms of a conversion, but as a call to apostleship and a commission to preach the Gospel. In the first instance, this was an encounter not with concepts or ideas but with the person of Jesus himself [Or, an encounter with the Jesus-event]. In fact, Paul met not only the historical Jesus of the past, but the living Christ who revealed himself as the one Saviour and Lord. Similarly, the ultimate source of our own conversion lies neither in esoteric philosophical theories nor abstract moral codes, but in Christ and his Gospel. He alone [NB!!] defines our identity as Christians, since in him we discover the ultimate meaning of our lives. Paul, because Christ had made him his own (cf. Phil 3:12), could not help but preach the Good News he had received (cf. 1 Cor 9:16). So it is with us. Transfixed by the greatness of our Saviour, we – like Saint Paul – cannot help but speak of him to others. May we always do so with joyful conviction!
Christianity is an encounter with the Jesus-event that is life-giving and life-changing.