I just read a great post at Catholic Exchange
1) The mainstream news media presents a distorted reality that subtly shapes our perceived relationship between the individual and government. As the author (Charles Colson) brilliantly observes:
“We are succumbing to what French philosopher Jacques Ellul prophesied in the 1960s—the politicization of all aspects of life. Ellul foresaw the Information Age and the media’s need for a steady flow of information to feed the populace. Media therefore would gravitate to covering centers of power. Politicians would be willing accomplices, because they’d gain fame and clout.”
In other words, the news media of our day is designed to favor and encourage ever larger and more powerful centers of government. Whether conservative or liberal in ideology, the mainstream media will always “gravitate to covering centers of power” - because THAT is where the “news” is – but their coverage only serves to augment that power. From the media’s perspective the true movers and shakers in society are the ruling elites, and so journalists hit us with a constant barrage of images and stories that focus on those who hold political power. Our minds become so saturated with this over-emphasis on the political that we begin to believe that every facet of our lives has some political dimension. We begin to believe that every social ill and every cultural shortcoming must be solved with some new piece of legislation or government action or bureaucratic program…
“We’ve succumbed to what Ellul predicted—the idea that every problem has a political solution. This, he warned, leads to increasing dependence on the state and decreasing citizen control of government.”
The media-driven emphasis on politics and State power subtly influences our perception of reality. We take on their bias toward more government control and less personal freedom. As we absorb their message that the really important things in the world are political, we begin to look at politics and government as the solution to all of our problems. We assume that the government ought to act whenever a social crisis arises. Driven by the media, the government becomes the primary shaper of society and of the culture.
This distortion is damaging to the more fundamental structures of society, the structures that really DO matter most, like family, marriage, and local associations like churches and civic groups:
“…when government becomes all-intrusive, the intermediate structures that keep societies vibrant—families, churches, and voluntary associations—collapse and tyranny follows.”
2) What is the solution?
We should all be constantly on alert to this bias in the media and resist it. When the media offers wall-to-wall coverage of some breaking news story and reporters hang on every word spoken by politicians who offer bureaucratic solutions and more government action, we should ask ourselves: Is this the best answer? Is there anything I can do personally instead of turning to government? Is there anything we can do as a community before we ask the government to get involved?
Or as the author says:
“What’s the answer? First, we better recognize that politics is not the be-all and end-all. Politics is merely the expression of culture. Clean up culture—that’s our job—and politics will follow.”
Change the culture. That is not an easy task. But it is a task we must set about doing. Politics cannot do it. As stated above, politics is a product of culture; we cannot expect politics to fix that from which it comes.
To fix the culture, we must turn to the private sector, our community organizations, our local business leaders, our families and churches to lead the way. By addressing social problems at this local level we build up the culture at its most fundamental level. If instead we rely on government to solve our problems, then we do not build up the culture – we only build up more government – and as a result society’s most basic structures suffer.
The culture has suffered enough. We must act now:
“And there is no time to lose. If, as I believe, the political illusion has America by the throat, there are only two likely outcomes—revolution…(albeit peacefully), or tyranny.”
I suggest a peaceful Revolution. And it begins at home. Turn off the TV and build up the culture.
“God has acted again and again through His people to change history’s course. But for that to happen, the Church had better sober up, summon its spiritual resources, expose the political illusion, and begin to defend and live the Christian faith in our culture.”
Question: I struggle with the Catholic religion because of the Saints, Mary, and the carved images that Catholics pray to for guidance. Is this not a form of idol worship? I thought if you were going to pray you should pray directly to God or to Jesus who is said to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through Him. I am honestly perplexed by this and I would love to hear the true Catholic perspective on this topic.
Answer:
Catholics worship God alone. It is important that we make this clarification at the outset. Any homage or honor shown to saintly men and women who have died before us is not the same as the worship and adoration given to the Father, Son, and Spirit – the Trinitarian God in whom all Christians believe.
The technical Latin terms used to express this difference are:
latria - which is the adoration or worship given only to God, in Whom we place our whole being as He is our Creator, our Redeemer, and our Sanctifier)
dulia - which is the honor and respect we show to the Saints, fellow humans who have achieved their Heavenly reward and are now in the presence of God.
All Christians including Catholics give latria/worship to God. But most Protestants/non-Catholics do not engage in dulia/honor shown to the Saints. The reasons for this are many, but from a Protestant perspective the answer seems simple: the Catholic practice is unbiblical and therefore either un-necessary or even blasphemous or idolatrous.
To answer this charge, we may find it simpler if we divide the issue into parts and answer each individually. As suggested by the wording of the question above, we can look at three aspects of the Catholic practice: 1) saints in general, 2) the uniqueness of Mary, and 3) the use of statues, carved images and iconography. In the end, we will see that the Catholic practice of praying to saints and Mary and the use of images is not only acceptable but has a biblical basis.
1) The Catholic practice of ‘praying’ to Saints
Since Catholics are not “worshipping” saints, then what exactly are they doing when they “pray” to those who have died? Can the dead hear us, and do they even take an interest in what is happening here on earth?
We know that the dead can hear us, and that they are engaged in what is happening in our lives, because the Bible gives us examples of this. In Jesus’ own life we see Him converse with the dead during the transfiguration:
“And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem.” (Luke 9:29-31)
Now, Catholics do not expect a miraculous apparition, a vision, or a verbal response to our prayers when we pray to the saints. What we do expect and hope for is that the saints in Heaven will go to God on our behalf and speak to Him, as Moses and Elijah spoke to Jesus, and that they will pray with us for whatever intention we wish to lay before God.
In Scripture we read that “the prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.” (James 5:16) Those who have died and are in Heaven are certainly “righteous.” When we “pray to” Saints, what we mean is that we “send our prayers up to them” and ask that they make our prayers their own. Just as we would ask our friends and neighbors here on earth to pray for us, so too, we ask our Christian family and friends in Heaven to join us in prayer.
Even so, we know that our prayers will only be answered if God allows it. The saints do nothing apart from God. In the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah appeared only because the Father allowed them to appear. The Apostles who witnessed this event were granted that vision as a part of God’s plan, not the plan of Moses and Elijah. God can allow or deny such intercession from the dead as He sees fit. (The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 might be an interesting passage to reflect upon in this regard. But in contrast we might read Matthew27:53, immediately after the Resurrection, where we see the dead participating in God’s glory: “They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.”)
Since the Bible tells us of these miraculous happenings, we can be certain that the dead are alive in God, since He is “the God of the living” (Matthew 22:32), and that the Saints do participate actively in God’s plan. Most assuredly they bring our prayers before God’s throne. In Revelation John tells us that our prayers are brought before God by those in His “Heavenly Court”:
“…the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” (Revelation 5:8)
In fact, Revelation is filled with scenes of Heavenly worship, in which those who have died together with the Angels offer praise, worship and petitions before God. Since we know this to be true, then it only makes sense that we should offer our prayers to the Saints and Angels so that they can add their voices to our own.
2) The uniqueness of Mary
To explain the role of Mary in Catholicism would take more space than what I have here, so I will be brief…
If Catholics offer honor and respect to the Saints in the form of dulia, then we offer a heightened form of honor to Mary which is called hyperdulia. This is because Mary played such a unique role in salvation history. If the Saints are honored because they participate in God’s plan and they show forth His grace and love in their lives, then Mary does so beyond compare. She is the Mother of God, the Theotokos (God-bearer), the New Eve (to Jesus’ New Adam), she is the woman of Revelation with twelve stars on her head, clothed in the sun, and the moon at her feet. This woman was taken to a special place prepared by God and protected from the dragon (Revelation 12:6). Mary thus holds a special place for Catholics, because we see it reflected in Scripture.
No other woman bore God in her womb and raised God as her own child. If Jesus is our spiritual brother, then Mary is our spiritual mother. She is not equal to God; we do not worship her. But she points the way to God: “Do whatever he tells you.” (John 2:5) Her “yes” to God won us a Savior. We love her as any good son would love his mother, and we do this in imitation of Christ: “Behold your mother.” (Luke 19:27) We fulfill the words she spoke of herself: “all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48)
(Any further questions about Mary ought to be dealt with individually…)
3) The use of statues and other images
Now the charge of idolatry can be discounted rather easily. As I already clarified, latria and dulia are distinct. Catholics are not worshiping the saints – we are not expecting the saints to save us or to pour out graces or blessings of their own. They are people just like us and are subordinate to God.
Then why the statues, paintings, and stained glass?
As I said before, we honor the Saints as we would any great hero of the past. We erect statues and monuments for our secular leaders (Presidents, war heroes, the Founding Fathers) and we make trips to these monuments so that we can pay our respects, remember their accomplishments, and revel in history. Our children learn from these physical reminders of our past.
We even erect memorials to lesser figures, such as the tombstones we place at the gravesites of our loved ones. We adorn these sites with flowers and mementos; we engraved images on them and messages of hope and love. We spend time at these monuments silently pondering the meaning of their life and death.
No one worships a tombstone. No one worships George Washington. But we place these physical reminders in special places to remind us of what came before us. And we spend time at these places to collect our thoughts and focus our attention at that one moment in time. This is what Catholics do when we place statues and other artistic objects in our churches depicting the Saints and Christ.
(The use of art and imagery in worship is not foreign to the Bible. There are references to artistic expression in the Old Testament, for instance the angelic images that surrounded the Ark of the Covenant as ordered to be constructed by God in Exodus 25. As long as these images are not worshipped as gods then it is not idolatrous.)
The Saints are our family…
When someone says, “My mother died when I was very young, but I know that she still looks over me from Heaven,” or “My grandfather passed away years ago, but I still feel his presence, and find comfort in knowing that he is with me,” that is the way Catholics feel about all the Saints. The Saints are our family because we are all God’s children. The Bible tells us that those who died in Christ are alive in Christ and they intercede on our behalf; they offer our prayers as incense before God. Catholics recognize this Biblical truth and put it into practice.
I was reminded recently of a biblical passage that is often quoted, and I believe generally misused, in ordinary conversation. In John 8:2-11 we read of a woman who was accused of adultery and the townspeople had gathered to stone her to death as punishment for her sin. But Jesus stops them, saying: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!”
This passage is often cited by those who wish to deflect criticism by pointing the finger back at their accusers: “How dare you point out my sins? You have no right to accuse me, since you yourself are a sinner.”
This misapplication of Jesus’ words does a disservice to the Word of God and allows sin and disobedience to flourish under the supposed protection of Jesus’ own command. Did Jesus really intend to prohibit fellow Christians from admonishing and correcting one another when one is caught committing sin? Are we forbidden from correcting others simply because we are all sinners?
This seems to fly in the face of other biblical texts which imply the opposite:
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom...” (Colossians 3:16)
“Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that others may take warning.” (1Timothy 5:20)
These and other passages instruct us in no uncertain terms that we are right to admonish and correct one another (sometimes publicly) when we see a fellow Christian falter. Indeed Paul’s writings are filled with sometimes harsh scolding directed at Christians for their sinfulness. Paul rebuked Peter (one of the chosen Twelve) for back-peddling on his position concerning eating meals with Gentiles. It seems that Christians have never shied away from pointing out error in fellow believers.
“He who is without sin…”
Now, Paul was not “without sin,” as he himself admits. He even calls himself the “worst of sinners” (1Timothy 1:15-16). So, how is it that Paul feels qualified to point out another’s sinfulness? Is Paul “casting stones” even though he is a sinner? And are we also “casting stones” when we point out the sins of our brothers and sisters in Christ?
There is a distinction that needs to be made here between the kind of Christian admonishment that we find in Paul’s writings and elsewhere in the New Testament, and what Jesus calls “casting the first stone.” Simply put, there is nothing wrong with calling a sin a sin and informing those who are trapped in a cycle of sin that they need to repent and conform their lives to Christ. This is the basic goal of evangelization – we are all called to repentance, to turn away from sin. Even baptized Christians need to be re-evangelized from time to time and evaluate their fidelity to the Gospel. We all must help one another by pointing out error. But this is different than “casting stones.”
For ancient Jews, to “cast a stone” was to exact a punishment as prescribed in the Old Law. The woman caught in adultery was not merely being admonished or corrected publicly, as Christians are told we ought to do for one another. Rather she was receiving the divinely mandated punishment for her sin: death by stoning. When Jesus says that “he who is without sin” should “cast the first stone,” He is saying that only God (who is without sin) has the authority to punish us for our sins. In light of this, the story of the woman caught in adultery tells us that we should not pass final judgment on a person because only God can do that. But it does not say that we can never point out the sins of others and urge them to correct their ways. Condemning someone to death and admonishing someone for their sins are two different things entirely.
Also important to remember is that the Jews of Jesus’ day disagreed about the resurrection of the body. Some believed that there would be no final resurrection, and so any reward or punishment given by God would be handed out during a person’s time here on earth. A rich man was rich because God recognized his righteousness and rewarded him with wealth. A poor man was poor and the sick contracted illness because they were sinners. But Jesus taught that this earthly system of temporal punishment and reward was not the way of God. Our final judgment and punishment would come after our deaths, not as outward signs of wealth and wellbeing here and now. Through the Grace of Christ, everyone (even the greatest sinner) has the chance to repent up to the moment of death, leaving salvation to the mercy of God.
Under the Old Law, punishment for sin had to be swift and severe to ensure that justice was served in this lifetime. But under the New Law, God’s mercy does away with the harsh brutality of fellow sinners judging one another’s souls. Jesus ended the barbarism of “casting stones.” But in doing so, He did not give us a “free pass” to sin. And He certainly did not forbid fellow Christians from reprimanding one another when we have fallen away from the Truth. We are all sinners (this much is true), but as sinners we all benefit from correction, even when correction is offered by our imperfect companions on this journey through life.
Too often, I hear fellow Christians citing John 8:2-11 as they wag their finger in the face of their accuser: “How dare you point out my sins? How dare you caste stones when you are just as much a sinner as I?” They are using the Word of God to shield themselves in their own sinfulness. This abuse of Scripture is a false refuge. They only compound their sin by twisting the words of Jesus to their own demise.
In Part I we reviewed the moral precepts laid out in the First Century Christian writing called The Didache. Specifically, we looked at its strong teaching against abortion. The Didache describes the Christian moral outlook in terms of “the way of life” versus “the way of death” – in much the same way that Pope John Paul II spoke of “the culture of death” and the “Gospel of Life.” We also recalled that the early Christians accepted the teachings of their church leaders as authoritative and binding. Concerning one who preaches and teaches the Word of God, The Didache instructs the faithful to “honor him as the Lord.” This is corroborated by other First Century Christian writings which state that the authority of Church leaders is drawn from the authority of Christ. So too, the Bible tells us that those who hold authority in the Church deserve our obedience.
But what about doctrine? The early Christians may have been similar to Catholics on moral issues and obedience to the hierarchy, but what about specific matters of faith? We will examine now a few examples from the text of The Didache:
Baptism:
On baptism The Didache has something interesting to say concerning the proper form of the Sacrament:
“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”
Full immersion is the preferred method of baptism in the Catholic Church today. But the general form of the Sacrament in most parishes is a pouring of water three times on the head while invoking the Trinity, just as described in the passage above. Considering the scarcity of water in some Middle Eastern locations (where Christianity first took root) and the secretive nature of the Church during times of persecution (making it difficult to gather in open areas near fresh water), the pouring of water was certainly used as a matter of practicality. First Century Christians would have been well aware of this form as practiced in their local churches.
Now some Fundamentalists or Evangelicals today might be surprised to discover that First Century Christians were not the “immersion only” baptizers that they are imagined to be. In fact, they resemble the Catholic Church in their sensible approach to this Sacrament.
Confession:
Concerning confession of sins and doing penance we find in The Didache a few references that should pique our interest. First this:
“Be not a stretcher forth of the hands to receive and a drawer of them back to give. If you have anything, through your hands you shall give ransom for your sins.”
We can understand from this that the First Century Christians had some sense that our good actions, our charity, can counteract in some way our personal sins. Our good works can affect the state of our soul. This may imply some form of indulgence (that is, the remission of punishment owed for a sin) or penance. At any rate, the early Christians believed that if we give charitably to those in need, our actions can “give ransom” for our sins, thus covering over our past transgressions. This means that even believing, practicing Christians (the audience of The Didache) have an ongoing need of removing the stain of sin from their souls. This is not unlike the Biblical principle stated in 1Peter:
“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms.” (4:8-10)
Did this also involve a verbal “confession” of sins, or was it simply the individual response of every believer to God’s grace? A second passage we find in The Didache seems to allude indirectly to an answer:
“In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience.”
The phrase “in the church” does not make clear whether the Church provides a formal confessional-style airing of a person’s sins, a public renouncing of sins, or some other style of verbal confession, but we can again turn to Scripture for further clarification, where we read:
“…If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” (James 5:15-16)
The Bible plainly says that verbal “confession” of sins to another Christian is the norm. If we consider all of these things together we must assume that the early Christians “confessed” their sins to someone “in the church,” and did some form of penance or charitable service to “give ransom for their sins” or to “cover over their sins” in some way. Regardless of the precise form, this sounds very similar to Catholic confession and penance.
The Lord’s Supper (Eucharist):
The First Century Christians gathered on Sundays to share the Eucharistic feast. In the text of The Didache it is interesting to note how the other Sacraments are related to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. For instance, confession of sins prior to reception of Communion was essential…
“…every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving [Eucharist] after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure…”
First we must note that the offering of bread and wine was seen as a “sacrifice” – not a mere symbolic meal – and it was a sacrifice that could be sullied by the sinfulness of the participants. Confession was necessary before reception of Communion. And who was allowed to participate in this sacrificial meal?
“…let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”
So the Sacraments of baptism and penance were both linked directly to the Eucharist, both leading toward and preparing the Christian for participation in the Sunday gathering. Only baptized Christians who had gone to confession were allowed to come forward and receive Communion. Likewise, for Catholics today the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of spiritual life; the other Sacraments (such as Baptism and Confession) point toward the Sacrificial Reality of the Eucharist and prepare us for Communion in His Body and Blood.
Eucharistic unity:
Among the First Century Christians, the unity of the Church was an important component in the sharing of the Eucharist. If a person stirred up division among his fellow Christians or was at odds with the rest of the congregation this would prevent him from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. The Didache warns us that if we allow someone who is in conflict with their fellow believers to receive the Eucharist we would again profane the “sacrifice.”
“…let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”
This unity among Christians was not applied merely to the local congregations, but extended to the whole Church throughout the world. Under the Kingship of Christ, all of the local churches are gathered into one Kingdom as the universal Church. The Didache expresses this idea in Eucharistic language:
“Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours [Father] is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.”
The same Eucharistic unity was expressed by Ignatius of Antioch (as we previously examined in his writings):
“Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.” (From Ignatius’ letter to the Philadelphians)
Leadership within the Church:
We recall that Ignatius wrote of unity under the leadership of a bishop. The Didache affirms this practice of appointing bishops at the head of local churches:
“Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers.”
The Didache also tells us that from our leaders we should expect unity of doctrine – not a system of individual interpretation, but a strict adherence to the norms laid out in this ancient text:
“Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not…”
Conclusion:
Many Christian groups today claim that the ancient Church was a loose collection of local churches, unorganized and free of any hierarchy or human authority. They claim that Christians of the first few centuries believed and worshipped as Evangelical Protestants do today, relying on individual interpretation of Scripture and a limited understanding of doctrine. These ancient Christians supposedly rejected the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist as well as confession of sins, and practiced only full emersion baptism…
None of this is true, according to The Didache. And furthermore, when we consider together all of the First Century Christian writings we have studied so far, we find that the early Church was remarkably united under a defined hierarchy and had a strong sense of the sacramental realities that Catholics hold today.
Thus far in our review of Patristic writings we have surveyed texts by or about: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna - all of whom lived during the First Century A. D. Because of their close connection to Apostolic times and because they were in contact with one or more of the Apostles, these men are called “Apostolic Fathers.” Their lives and writings bear profound witness to Christianity at the time of its formation and they provide valuable insight into the structure and function of the early Church. Knowing the names and life stories of these early Christians affords us a tremendous opportunity for building spiritual communion with our Christian past. Through their eyes we can understand the story of the Church on a personal level.
But not all writings from this period are from known authors – some are anonymous. This does not detract from the value or authenticity of the writings. There are many important insights to be gleaned from texts that are of unknown authorship. One such source is The Didache (or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). This brief instructional guide was written around A.D. 70, so it is well within the time of the Apostles and was highly regarded by the Church of the first few centuries. Some of the Church Fathers included The Didache in their list of Scriptural books. But even among those who rejected it as “scripture” it was at least a close second in importance to those books that were truly inspired.
It is important to remember here that the Bible as we know it was not compiled in the First Century…or even in the Second. It was not until the late Fourth Century that we begin to see a final list of books considered “Scripture.” Until that time, The Didache was one among many manuscripts that were passed around within the Church alongside our familiar four Gospels, the Epistles, the Book of Revelation and Acts. Amid this confusion, the “Hand of God” did not come down out of the clouds, sort through these texts, and bind them into a Biblical Cannon. Rather, the final “table of contents” was an open question for hundreds of years. To understand the Church of the first few centuries we must understand that writings such as The Didache were a powerful teaching force in the eyes of the first Christians.
Keeping that in mind, we will consider a few excerpts from The Didache and compare these texts to what we have learned from the Father’s we have so far reviewed…
The Didache opens with a solemn warning:
“There are two ways, one of life and one of death; but a great difference between the two ways…”
Upon reading these words, we might immediately call to mind the Church’s present struggle against the “culture of death” versus the “Gospel of Life” as described by Pope John Paul II. The late pontiff preached that we are surrounded on all sides by a culture that promotes death – not only spiritual death through sin and an abandonment of God’s Law, but also real physical death through anti-life practices such as contraception, discrimination against the aged and disabled, through euthanasia and most horribly the scourge of abortion. Christians are called to respond with the “Gospel of Life” – the message that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that His way is not the way of the world. There are certainly two paths: one that leads to eternal life with God, and one that is marked by death and the destruction of our souls. The Church has always testified to this truth.
As we read further we find the following command:
“…you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.”
Many people mistakenly believe that abortion is a recent phenomenon – a product of the modern medical practitioners in lab coats and sterile operating rooms. Surely our ancient predecessors never grappled with the moral dilemma with which we are now faced. This false perception of history leads some to assume that Christians of today could fairly come down on either side of the abortion debate. The procedure is so new that the first Christians would never have dreamed of such things and so we could never learn from them how to apply Christian moral principles to abortion. But ask a First Century Christian about abortion and he might very well cite The Didache as an authoritative rejection of the “culture of death.” First Century Christians would have been very attuned to the powerful message of the modern the Catholic Church against the “way of death.”
The Didache continues:
"The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, your neighbor as yourself…And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what reward is there, if you love those who love you? Do not also the Gentiles do the same? But love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy…If someone gives you a blow upon your right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you shall be perfect. If someone impresses you for one mile, go with him two. If someone takes away your cloak, give him also your coat. If someone takes from you what is yours, ask it not back, for indeed you are not able. Give to every one that asks you, and ask it not back; for the Father wills that to all should be given of our own blessings…”
Obviously this text was heavily influenced by the sayings of Jesus as found in the Gospels. Scholars believe that these sayings were circulated by word-of-mouth prior to the writing of the New Testament books and later found their way into many First Century texts. This segment of The Didache is like a mini-gospel, relating the teachings of Jesus in a compressed format to instruct the faithful. So the “way of life” as described here is truly the “Gospel of Life” of which John Paul so often spoke. The First Century Christians would have recognized the same message reflected in John Paul’s preaching.
Some might argue that the First Century Christians may possibly agree to the pope’s message, but they certainly would not have accepted his authority as bishop of the whole Church. The Catholic Church invented the power of the hierarchy, did they not?
In answer to this challenge we see that The Didache speaks highly of Church leaders and preachers of God’s Word and saintly men and women in the Church:
“My child, him that speaks to you the word of God remember night and day; and you shall honor him as the Lord; for in the place whence lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord. And you shall seek out day by day the faces of the saints, in order that you may rest upon their words.”
We are to “honor him as the Lord” those who preach God’s Word to us. This closely echoes what we have read in other First Century Christian writings:
“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaens)
And this:
“…your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed…Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be united with your bishop, and those that preside over you…” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesisans)
But what could be more forceful on this point than Scripture itself:
“Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you; consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith...Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Heb 13:7,17)
If we seek to understand the First Century Church then we must admit that obedience to Church leadership was a vital component of the early Christian experience...
About a year and a half ago I was confronted by a fellow Christian blogger who claimed that the Catholic Church was a corruption of true Christianity. He said that Catholics had added doctrines to the pure message of the Gospel, thus cluttering genuine Christianity with unnecessary teachings and even outright blasphemous beliefs. He asserted that the Catholic Church could really only trace itself back perhaps as far as the 400s, but before that time he assured me that one would find Christians of the first three or four centuries believed and worshiped closer to the way Protestant or Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians do today. In his mind the early martyrs and those Christians who were persecuted under the Roman Empire were his spiritual counterparts and coreligionists.
I told him that I too claim the early Church as my own. I insisted that the first few centuries of Christianity were decidedly Catholic not Protestant, and that the Catholic Church can trace itself back in an unbroken chain through the centuries to Christ Himself. I challenged him to examine the historical record with me to see which of us is correct. The materials needed for such an endeavor are readily available online. Many Christian writings from the first three or four centuries A.D. survive to this day, and we need only examine these ancient manuscripts to find out what the early Church truly believed. Together we could discover what the first Christians had to say for themselves about their beliefs.
To this end, I began a series of blog posts designed to examine the writings of the early Christians. Obviously I am not the first to undertake such a task, and I am certainly not the most qualified. I don’t claim that any of these posts are the best writing on this subject, but hopefully they do answer the challenges that are posed by many non-Catholics concerning the history of Catholic doctrine.
The earliest Christian writers are called the “Fathers of the Church.” So what we are studying here is called Patristics – from the Latin pater or “father.” These early Christian Fathers have left behind a written record of their beliefs, and taken as a whole it is a vast treasure trove of information from which we can build an idea of what the early Christians thought and believed on a host of issues and matters of faith. Many of these Christian authors gave their lives for their faith – so we at least owe them an honest read of what they wrote about their faith before we claim them as our forbearers.
After studying what these Church Fathers had to say we can compare their thoughts to the doctrines taught by today’s Christian denominations and come to see which church, if any, can truly claim an authentic relationship with the Apostolic Church.
So far, over the course of a little over a year, I have examined three writers:
Clement of Rome (Part I, II)
Ignatius of Antioch (Part I, II, III, IV, V)
Polycarp of Smyrna (Part I, II, III, IV)
All of these men lived during the First Century A.D. and all of them knew and learned their faith from at least one or more of the Apostles. All three men were leaders of the Church and held the rank of bishop. The links above include everything I have written so far in summarizing their writings and picking up on key themes and doctrines that go toward my thesis that the early Church was in fact “Catholic.” (Also see this brief Introduction)
Having neglected this series on Patristics for several months, I intend to pick up again where I left off and my next post will cover another First Century text…
Spring is in full bloom at our house – trees are getting their leaves, birds are singing, the days are warming, and the flowers are bursting with color…especially the vibrant yellow of the dandelions that carpet my yard. Yes, I know that dandelions are considered weeds and that most homeowners fight a perpetual battle to defeat this arch nemesis of gardeners everywhere. And to be honest, in the past I have tried my share of chemical herbicides and lawn treatments…but not for long and not with much success. I gave it up. It just wasn’t that important to me. I have other priorities that deserve my money and time more than killing weeds.
This became especially evident when my daughter (a preschool-aged bundle of girl-energy) took an interest in the dandelions as they came into bloom one spring. “Look at the pretty flowers, Dad!” she squealed, as she ran barefoot through the grass collecting a bouquet of the otherwise un-loved little blossoms. As every child does, she especially enjoyed blowing the fluff of the mature flower and watching the seed scatter in the wind. In a child’s world, an endless supply of dandelions means an endless supply of fun. So how was I supposed to tell her: “Stay off the lawn for a couple of days, honey. Daddy just sprayed a chemical that’s going to kill all of your precious flowers”?
Besides the fact that I would be a killjoy for taking away my children’s outdoor entertainment, there is also the cost to consider. Now in the grand scheme of things I suppose the money I would spend on a couple of herbicide treatments each year would be pretty insignificant. But then again, why not fertilize the grass as well? I mean, if you are going to kill the unwanted plants like dandelions and crabgrass you should probably encourage the growth of the desirable grasses while you’re at it. Perhaps I should re-seed? Maybe de-thatch, and do a little landscaping, or have my trees professionally trimmed. You know, really get the yard looking nice.
I suppose I could spend some money on all of that and have a pretty fabulous yard. But my wife and I made a conscious decision several years ago that we want a simple life, uncluttered by needless expenses and modern material obsessions. To that end, we are probably the only ones in our neighborhood who do not have cable television or a satellite dish. We have never owned a cell phone, and while it is true that we do own a computer with internet connection, it is the most inexpensive dialup service we could find. We only have one vehicle because we both work within a quarter of mile from each other, and our kids are at a daycare that is within walking distance of our jobs, and we pass our son’s school during our three minute commute each morning from our home. So why buy a second car when we would all ride together anyway?
Granted, not every family is in a position to forego the purchase of a second car. We are unique in that respect. But certainly most people could eat out less, or not splurge on the latest iPod technology or cell phone upgrade, or spend more time at home with family and friends instead of spending money on expensive entertainment. This doesn’t mean cutting out all of life’s enjoyments. But enjoying less stuff usually means that the stuff we do enjoy is appreciated more! And that is an important lesson to teach our kids.
And for my wife and I, it really is about the kids. With the birth of each of our three children we found new ways to save money or make better use of the resources we have. We cut coupons, buy generic foods, check out movies from our public library instead of renting. We do without cell phones or cable TV. And we let the dandelions grow in our yard. If we are blessed with more children in the future (which I pray we are), then I am sure we will find more ways of cutting corners and making do with what we have.
Our kids learn from our example, but we can learn from them as well. As my daughter collects dandelions in our yard on a spring afternoon she follows her usual ritual. She bundles the limp stems together in her tiny fist and makes her way to the statue of Mary holding the Christ Child on display at the front of our house. She gently lays her precious gift at the feet of Our Lady and pats the statue on the head. The field of dandelions is her field of prayers offered at the feet of Mary. They may just be weeds to most people, but I have faith that Mary accepts this gift as gratefully as she would a dozen of the finest roses presented in the same fashion – perhaps more so.
They say that children grow like weeds…In my experience that old adage rings true. I hope to one day lay at Mary’s feet the bouquet of little dandelions that I tended in my yard. I believe I’ll keep my weeds even when the world tells us we should shun them for a well manicured lawn.
I just read a great post at Catholic Exchange
