Skip to main content

letter to an evangelical

I am deleting personal parts of the letter:

My proposal was that the power of Christ is really and truly present in and through the sacraments.  And that Christ calls us to seek Him together and through each other. 

It is interesting that when St. Paul encountered Christ, the Lord said to Him, "Paul, why do you persecute me?"  Paul was persecuting Christians, not Christ.  Unless Christians are in some way Christ. 

If Paul persecuted Christ by persecuting Christians, then we encounter Christ when we encounter Christians.

I propose that it is exceedingly rare that anyone encounters Christ alone without first having encountered Christ through others.  Conversion in solitude is not "plan A" if you will.  Otherwise, Christ would not have bothered to say, "where ever two or more are gathered... there I am in the their midst."  And the Acts wouldn't mention the fact that the first Christians worshipped together.

As for statues and the Old Testament, I grant that your objections are reasonable.  And I appreciate your concession that Catholics and Orthodox (both of which have been engaged in their mode of worship centuries and centuries prior to Protestant modes of worship) are not idolaters.

But my understanding is that St. John of Damascus gave the most worthwhile explanation of why sacred images are okay.  His point was now that the Incarnation has happened, the humanity of Christ Himself lifts us to the Father, and Christians are in some sense an extension of that Humanity.

Take Our Lady of Guadalupe, the most famous image of Mary, for example: http://www.sancta.org/art/our_lady_of_guadalupe_4x6.jpg

She is depicted in prayer to Another greater than herself.  Yet she is depicted, like the woman of Revelation, as being clothed with the sun.  Does Revelation deify that woman?  No because it portrays her as being directed in the service of the Lord.  So does the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe...

Objections to images in worship first arose in the centuries after Islam came into existence.  The first Christians who demolished sacred images (thinking that they were blasphemous) were most likely influenced by Islam, which preaches the otherness of God in a manner that is to the Gospel.

I invite you to look at the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe that I linked to you and ask if it exhalts her more than God or whether it looks more like the woman mentioned in Revelation.

Again, the story of your conversion is just the beginning of your walking with the Lord.  It may be the case that you are called to encounter Him sacramentally as well.  You may think, "I have the Holy Spirit--I don't need that."  But perhaps it's exactly what you would desire... if you understood it rightly.

In fact, the question of the sacraments and that of Mary and images are interconnected in the following manner:  if the Eucharist is what Catholics believe it to be--that is, if Catholics truly encounter and ADORE the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Risen Savior in the Eucharist--then all other forms of worship pale in comparison.  From my Catholic perspective, I can see how Protestants are reluctant to honor Mary: it's because they are only honoring but not ADORING Christ in their prayer services.  Since they honor but don't adore Christ, they feel awkward giving what seems to Protestants like the same honor to Mary.  I propose that the best response to this problem is to give more honor to Christ by adoring Him where He is truly present... Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.... in the Eucharist

The Eucharist is, in a sense, the Parousia of the Lord that we all long for!

Comments

Tim D said…
Very nicely said. There is also the angle of saying that the experience of the communion of saints in "heaven" (including Mary) is an extension of the communion of saints on earth.
Leo White said…
Thanks, Tim! Yes, we and the blessed are part of the same communion. By the way, the Eucharist as parousia remark comes from Scott Hahn's Letter and Spirit. He notes that some of the Church fathers spoke this way.
Tim D said…
I'd like to read that. By the way, I put heaven in quotes because given the presence of relics on earth, the saints fallen asleep aren't entirely "gone".

Popular posts from this blog

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological

continuing the discussion with Tim in a new post

Hi Tim, I am posting my reply here, because the great blogmeister won't let me put it all in a comment. Me thinks I get your point: is it that we can name and chimps can't, so therefore we are of greater value than chimps? Naming is something above and beyond what a chimp can do, right? In other words, you are illustrating the point I am making (if I catch your drift). My argument is only a sketch, but I think adding the ability to name names, as it were, is still not enough to make the argument seem cogent. For one can still ask why we prefer being able to name over other skills had by animals but not by humans. The objector would demand a more convincing reason. The answer I have in mind is, to put it briefly, that there is something infinite about human beings in comparison with the subhuman. That "something" has to do with our ability to think of the meaning of the cosmos. Whereas one might say"He's got the whole world in His han

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here.&qu