Per Christum

Tomorrow Lent officially begins with the fast day of Ash Wednesday. I have always had a great love of Lent ever since I began to keep it somewhat haphazardly as an evangelical. Lent always held a sense of mystery for me because I grew up in an evangelical tradition that never really embraced Lent (but, thankfully didn’t condemn it either; think of it as a "personal option."). I started to become interested in Lent about the same time I took an interest in the Church Fathers.

My first experience with Lent was as an evangelical at university. In a way, I was quite brave because I gave up coffee! It was honestly the hardest Lent I’ve ever been through, but I faithfully didn’t touch a drop until I broke the Lenten fast with Jamaican Blue Mountain Coffee. That was the best cup of coffee I ever had in my entire life! When I became an Anglican I entered into Lent on a more formal level and it was a time of important spiritual growth. After my conversion to Catholicism my love of and participation in Lent has only increased.

In short: I love Lent. I can’t really explain why I look forward to Lent, but I receive an incredible sense of joy throughout these 40 days. There’s something about the "spiritual housecleaning" and sense of detachment and renunciation that brings about great spiritual satisfaction and blessing. I now could never truly know the joy of Easter without the season of Lent and the time of Holy Week and the Triduum. We can’t separate the Cross from the resurrection and we can’t liturgically separate Lent from Easter either: at least not with any theological integrity.

With all other Catholics of a certain age, I will be fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and having meatless Fridays. However, it’s also a venerable custom to “give something up” for Lent or institute positive practices that encourage spiritual growth. This year I’m thinking of giving up adding hot chocolate to my morning coffee. I’m also going to give up going to McDonald’s when I get a craving and getting snacks at the local gas station. I’m also going to read the Church Fathers and the Bible daily. I’m not saying this to brag about my supposed piety, but merely to give suggestions to others.

May God bless you this Lent! (I’m off to McDonalds)

Lent Resources:

All About Lent
Lenten Prayers

Blogs:

Chad has commented here and here.
David muses on Lent
LutherPunk is excited that Lent is coming
Argent writes about going into the wilderness
John Heard reminds us that we are but dust
St. Peters Helpers gives a great post on preparing for Lent
The Anchoress says there’s something about ashes

Cross posted to Ancient and Future Catholic Musings

The Catholic perspective on personal suffering for the Christian is very different than what I was accustomed to in the Protestant church, it’s more Christ like.

Our eldest daughter could use that statement as an example of a biased point of view for her most recent law class assignment so, I should expand on it a little and I will but if you haven’t the time or inclination to read on please at least skip to the end of the post and catch the quote and follow the link for the wonderful reason why this unexpected post of mine.

A wide range of views on suffering is held within the Protestantism but the most common in North America anyway and least biblical is the one that says Christians should not suffer or that if they do it is their own fault, by sin, or lack of spirituality. It all sounds more like works to me that than worst of the spurious works accusations made of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants who name and claim non suffering for Christians must, ironically, support their position from a place other than scripture alone.

The Scriptures are full of men and women who took their personal suffering in hand and offered it up to God as a sacrifice, of all things, a gift by which he might do as his will pleases on behalf of meeting the needs of others, of a person or people other than the one who is themselves suffering.

This is not to say that there were not and are not faithful Christians who as Protestants know what it is to give their own suffering as a means to seeing others benefit. One example among not a few would be Dr. Mark Buntain, a missionary in Calcutta, India who with his wife sacrificed their life personally, professionally and literally. From 1954, when the Doctors Buntain moved permanently from Canada to Calcutta until his death in 1989 Mark and his wife Huldah gave their all in the service of Christ that involved no small amount of suffering. They remain relatively unknown while Mission of Mecry Hospital they founded and other MMCY ministries thrive as their spiritual heritage impacting the poor and marginal.

But suffering to the glory of God is not a concept with which Protestants are well acquainted as a personal devotion and or gift we can give to God and for the betterment of his Church and any person he chooses to bless through our gift. Suffering is mostly something to be avoided, except by the super specially chosen. It is mostly to be avoided, hidden and it is most definitely not associated in any way with the idea of a gift we can offer to God.

It is the Catholic who says, rather than have you focus on my suffering I would ask for prayer not for me but that I may, in my present suffering offer it to the Lord on behalf of your prayer intention. To my dear brother Protestants this is a bizarre idea and one they think cannot be supported by Scripture which is so odd. How on earth, as a Protestant did I read and interpret this?

I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.
– Colossians 1:24

That is but one example among many from Scripture and here are a couple more in the a quote of John Paul II who most certainly lived out his papacy not hiding his suffering from the world and giving every bit of its humiliation and mortification to God as a gift on behalf of the Church, Christians world wide and all people everywhere:

‘Human suffering in fact can show forth the goodness of God: the wound can become a fountain of life (cf. Jn. 19:34). The experience of suffering discourages and depresses many people, but in the lives of others it can create a new depth of humanity: it can bring new strength and new insight. The path to understanding this mystery is our faith. When faith turns to prayerful contemplation, it reveals to us all the power of the Lord’s Easter victory: ‘death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor tears nor pain’ (Rv. 21:4).’

I came to this extended thought today via a quick check in on an RSS feed on a day when I should have spent the past two hours not contemplating this but working on the sketches of a recentcommissioned painting - or perhaps that is my gift to God, to be disciplined in the stewardarding of the art gift he has given me to give back to him such that it includes setting it aside to think and pray and in regard to, well, whatever he would lead me too consider and offer.

Marc, over at wildtangents.net has been having a horrible go with a nasty root canal, are there any other kind but nasty? But this seems especially nasty. However, Marc is not asking us to feel sorry for him nor even that we would pray for him.

“Anyway, I am expecting more of it tomorrow, so I’m asking for prayer requests. Let me clarify, I am not asking you to pray for me. This will pass. I will be alright. I am asking you to help me give this suffering some purpose. Please comment with your prayer requests. I will offer up this suffering to God for your intentions.”

This is the power and beauty there is in being Catholic. Something my Protestant friend fully do not understand, even as I did not. I know do, or at least, am beginning to understand. If you have a prayer intention I suggest you head on over to Marc’s place while he is still suffering on our behalf.

Owen
::thrive!

{This post is cross posted on luminousmiseries.ca}

I was browsing the blog the foolishness of this world, and I came across this comment on an archived post/discussion thread, where the commenter is referring to those who are defending the Catholic faith:

“It was not my intention to get dirty here, but this is just ridiculous. You kids have fun with the return to slavery.”

I can’t be 100% sure what the poster means here, because she didn’t elaborate further, but I am guessing this has to do with her disdain for voluntarily submitting to the Catholic Church. The thought behind this comment is probably that submitting to the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox would probably be considered here as well) is a form of slavery. Why, many wonder, would a Protestant, virtually unencumbered by any authority outside individual authority, submit to the Catholic Church? This is a good question and I can only give my opinion. I will say that many young people are deciding to submit to Catholic Teaching, so it is not just a few of us.

One reason I submitted to Catholic Teaching, giving up any so-called freedom I had: enslavement to the self is really more oppresive than enslavement to the Church (and thus to Christ). Being enslaved to the self often leads to division, relatavism, faddishness, and novelty. Submission to the Church leads to unity, universality, stability, and orthodoxy. Granted, many protestants will say “I follow Christ, not myself!” However, we all have lenses through which we view Christ, shaped by our backgrounds and denominational affiliations, and at last count there were hundreds of different, competing lenses (thousands if you define “denomination” in a more loose fashion).

I admit that there are issues and concerns that come with submission to Church Teaching. For many it is very scary, and some (falsely) assume that submission to the Church means the Church will control your every thought and action. In reality, the Church provides a fence, and there is plenty of room to graze. Many of these concerns come because we in the Western world like the individual being the final arbiter of all spiritual and moral matters. However, if we believe that there is such thing as apostolic truth, handed down validly to successors, then submission to Christ and his Church is hardly oppressive, but truly liberating, because it brings us closer to Christ. I am willing to grant that many Protestants see submission to the Catholic Church as submission to a false, corrupt, system. However, in response to this assertion I ask, “is the Catholic Church any more corrupt than the individual human mind?” At least the Catholic Church has historical consensus on its side, as Chesterton calls “the democracy of the dead.”

I believe that we all submit to some form of authority anyway, and in a sense we are all slaves to some ideological outlook. Many are enslaved to enlightenment individualism without even knowing it. Good or bad (I think the enlightenment was a mixed bag), many folks are slaves to their own authority in the same way they accuse us Catholics of being slaves to the Church. Perhaps we blindly follow the Church, but so many blindly follow the individual. Yes I am a slave, a slave of Christ, known through the Church, which is “the pillar and ground of truth.”

Lent is almost upon us. Ash Wednesday is nearly a week away. Many people often wonder what they should “give up” for Lent and time is running out. Many people also wish they had the time to read writings from the history of the Church, especially the early Fathers. At Ancient and Future Catholics and ChurchYear.Net we’ve come up with a great solution for both of these dilemmas: the Church Fathers Lenten Reading Plan (.pdf) (go here for html version). For those who do not have access to the writings of the Church Fathers, or prefer the convenience of having all the readings in one spot, Chad has collected all the texts into one .pdf file (205 pages): Church Fathers Lenten Reading Plan: With Texts.

2007 UPDATE: We now have a Church Fathers Lenten Reading Plan LITE, for those who want to read some Church Fathers, but may not have time to read as much as the regular plan suggests. Please check out our shortened version.

If you follow our plan, when Easter comes, you will have read 10 early Church Fathers (8 on the Lite Plan) and over 15 individual works from the early Church (10 on the Lite Plan). You will also have deepened your faith and knowledge in numerous ways during Lent. It will only take 15 minutes or so a day too. These writings have been an inspiration down through the ages and helped lead countless numbers throughout history to the Catholic Church (including many readers and contributors to our websites). What are you waiting for?

P.S.- if you’re doing this, please let us know and provide feedback on choices, length of readings, etc.

Cross posted at Ancient and Future Catholic Musings

Back when I was a Protestant attending a Protestant seminary, I read both the canons of the Council of Trent and Martin Luther on the subject of justification. I had never really gotten involved in the whole debate over justification, but eagerly read both of these sources to learn more. Surprisingly, I found myself coming down on the side of Trent! I had been thoroughly schooled in the early Church and was surprised to find that Trent was very much in line with Patristic views (e.g. Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, etc.) I also felt that Trent best represented the whole of biblical and New Testament thought, not just a particular reading of St. Paul. In short, I entered the debate firmly on the Catholic side several years before I became Catholic!

I have posted the canons of the Council of Trent below. If you read carefully, you’ll notice that the canons are very balanced and reliant on previous Church doctrines. Trent re-affirms the Catholic doctrine of grace against Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism. The council also steers the middle course between the Calvinist and Pelagian excesses on freewill or lack thereof (and takes a genuinely Patristic stand). Trent also denies justification by faith alone or works alone and imputed righteousness, affirming like the early Fathers, in the necessity of both faith and works through God’s grace.

The anathemas are a bit harsh, but remember they are in the context of a polemical era. And, the Protestants certainly hurled their own invective our way. Also, for the current state of Catholic-Protestant (at least Lutheran) debate on justification, it’s important to read the The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.

Here are the canons (source):

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the fear of hell,-whereby, by grieving for our sins, we flee unto the mercy of God, or refrain from sinning,-is a sin, or makes sinners worse; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.

CANON XXII.-If any one saith, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVII.-If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity ; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVIII.-If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or, that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Chris taught; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

CANON XXXI.-If any one saith, that the justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal recompense; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

Photo by Jonathan Bennett

There is a reason we teach children to fold their hands and close their eyes when praying. It helps them to focus, and it shows them that they are doing something special. When I grew into my teenage years, I rejected such pietistic outward displays of “religion” and preferred casual conversation with my buddy, Jesus, and was encouraged in this direction by older men in my church.

Of course the next step in this process is to stop praying at all, and just commune with God throughout your day. Now there is nothing ultimately wrong with this mystical, relational, fellowship with God. But it should be balanced with the sacred, the times set apart, the liturgical, the forms and postures. Make special time to pray to God. At the very least close your eyes and fold your hands to keep them out of trouble.

Now, I said all that so I could say this: I prayed the Rosary for the first time a couple days ago. One of the beauties of this devotion is it not only keeps your hands from distraction, it uses your hands. It involves them. Your hands hold the beads, guiding the way as you pray. Not only are your hands occupied, but your your mouth and ears are occupied during the Hail Mary’s, allowing your mind to meditate on the special events of Christ’s life and work.

The rosary consists of many different prayers. It includes the Apostles Creed, the Our Father (or Lord’s Prayer), the Glory Be, the Hail Mary and sometimes others. It is a prayer of devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, but while praying it, it is undeniably Christocentric. Mary points us to Christ. And even devotions to her can do nothing but point us to her Son. While praying the prayers, you ponder the “mysteries” or events of Christ’s life.

Second, I want to recommend a great early Christian writing: The Epistle to Diognetus. It is a beautiful letter written by an unknown early Christian somewhere between the late first century and the mid second century. I always recommend this letter to people starting to read the Fathers for the first time because it’s beautifully written, is fairly short, and the writer knew the apostles. I encourage everyone to read this beautiful letter, an excerpt of which I’ve included here:

They [Christians] dwell in their own countries, but only as
sojourners; they bear their share in all things as
citizens, and they endure all hardships as strangers.
Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and
every fatherland is foreign.

They marry like all other men and they beget
children; but they do not cast away their offspring.

They have their meals in common, but not their
wives.

They find themselves in the flesh, and yet they
live not after the flesh.

Their existence is on earth, but their
citizenship is in heaven.

They obey the established laws, and they
surpass the laws in their own lives.

They love all men, and they are persecuted by
all.

They are ignored, and yet they are condemned.

They are put to death, and yet they are endued with
life.

They are in beggary, and yet they make many
rich. They are in want of all things, and yet they
abound in all things.

They are dishonoured, and yet they are
glorified in their dishonour. They are evil spoken of,
and yet they are vindicated.

They are reviled, and they bless; they are
insulted, and they respect.

Source: Early Christian Writings (tr. J.B. Lightfoot)

Cross posted to Ancient and Future Catholic Musings

…who are deeply opposed to women’s ordination.

Why are you still Anglican?

Seriously. The bishops of the Anglican church, including many global south bishops, have concluded that the ordination of women is a non-issue for the Anglican communion. Women are ordained in many Anglican provinces, and have been for years. The church of England is paving the way for women bishops (which makes sense considering they have had women priests since 1992). The Episcopal church has insisted that every diocese accept women’s ordination, whether they like it or not. I think that women’s ordination is a foregone conclusion in Anglicanism, accepted (or at least tolerated) by most Anglicans worldwide who are either progressive (in the West) or evangelical (in the developing world). Even many “conservative” Anglicans support women’s ordination and sometimes have harsh words for those other conservatives who oppose WO. Those in Anglicanism who oppose women’s ordination often come across as angry and bitter, and are becoming a smaller and smaller minority. So…why stick around? I ask this as someone who is generally curious.

Let me note that I have no official stats on the future of WO in Anglicanism. It is just that comments on blogs as of late (and the reasons I mentioned above) have convinced me that any future Anglicanism, conservative or liberal, is going to include women’s ordination. I just wonder where die-hard Anglo-Catholics fit in is all.

Valentine’s Day is coming, so we men had better make sure we have some chocolates and roses handy, lest we end up in the doghouse for the next few weeks. Mother’s Day is just around the corner, and I can’t wait until we get to take our mothers out to eat at the local buffet. Soon we’ll be grilling out and watching fireworks on a humid 4th of July Night. So how does this relate to theology? Well, many churches faithfully celebrate these holidays (with the exception of Valentine’s Day) in their worship services. While I enjoy these holidays, and celebrate them every year, I still recognize them for what they are: secular holidays.

Many Christians are weary of living on secular time. It is not that we have a problem with secular holidays; we just want something deeper, something connected to our faith. After all, secular time is, well, secular. Let’s take February for example. Secular time offers one federal holiday, president’s day, and two other holidays: Groundhog’s Day and Valentine’s Day. None have any real Christian significance (despite the Christian origins of Valentine’s Day and Groundhog’s Day). Besides that, there are only three, yes a whopping three, holidays in February. Talk about disappointing.

However, during the same month of February, the Christian calendar celebrates the following holidays (and many more): the Presentation of the Lord, St. Polycarp, Ss. Cyril and Methodius, and often the season of Lent (this year Lent begins in March). So if we follow the Christian calendar, we are able to reflect on a major event in the life of our Lord (with an amazing candle service), learn about a great early bishop and martyr, and pray with the apostles to the Slavs. We also usually begin our 40-day period of fasting in February, when we recall the fasting Jesus did in the wilderness, as we fast ourselves.

I am not trying to force the Church Calendar on anybody. The Liturgical year is a blessing, something meaningful in which to participate, and something we must discover for ourselves. However, I think many churches need to rethink their general suspicion of church holidays and their uncritical celebration of many secular holidays. A Christian I met in college is a perfect example of this thinking. As a Methodist, I was observing Lent, and was talking about it with my girlfriend at the time. When he overheard our conversation, he said, “Lent! Are you Catholic?” in a somewhat scornful tone. He was suspicious of a Christian holiday rooted in the life of Jesus, a Christian season that helps us spiritually clean house, yet he had no problem observing Independence Day or Memorial Day in his church, clearly secular holidays. While I love my country and enjoy celebrating it, Lent is only holiday in this paragraph with clear biblical roots.

I invite everyone to explore what many of us call “holy time” or “sanctified time.” The Church Year is God’s time, cycled around the major events of our salvation and redemption, cycled around JESUS. I think you will find observing the Church Year (through prayer, worship, and reading) to be very meaningful. What can be more meaningful than time that centers around Jesus? Below is what I have written on the ChurchYear.Net page, expressing what we believe the Church Year to be:

In the course of a year, the Church celebrates the unfolding of the mystery of Christ, beginning with Advent, anticipating his first coming, and reaching a high point at Easter, the feast of feasts, celebrating Christ’s resurrection. Through the Church Year, which includes the seasonal, daily, and yearly cycles of Christian time, we live into the events of Jesus and his followers through sanctified time. Thus, we experience in symbol what Jesus and his followers did in reality. We do this through daily prayer (The Liturgy of the Hours), worship, the Eucharist, the sacraments, art, changing colors, canticles, psalms, antiphons, symbols, and other means.

The Church Year, including all liturgical celebrations and times of prayer, is one of the most meaningful dimensions of the Catholic faith. Many Christians of all traditions feel drawn to this system of holy time, and prefer to orient their lives around the Christian calendar instead of the secular calendar. Postmodern men and women feel especially drawn to many elements of Sanctified Time: mystery, connection to the past, and a multitude of religious symbols and experiential elements. Thus the Church Year is a postmodern Catholic evangelism tool, and a means of spiritual growth for all who use it.

Thanks to Chad for getting me thinking about the Church Year!

Once again, We at Ancient and Future Catholics are having an event. This Wednesday, February 8, at 9:00 PM EST, we will be having a general Question and Answer session about the Catholic Church and issues relating to the Church. The event will be held in our Paltalk Room, Catholics Building Bridges. Please join us, bringing your questions (and answers!).

To hear some of these events in action, please check out the Ancient and Future Catholic Podcast!

I walked into our school library on Monday and I noticed they were selling some of their books for a dime a piece. I found some great books. I bought some collections of philosophical writings, a book on getting published, a collection of great political essays, and a book entitled Religion in America: Opposing Viewpoints, published in 1989. It is part of a larger Opposing Viewpoints series that looks at different issues from a variety of angles. The book I bought in the series deals with Religion and its relationship to national life and politics.

I have only begun reading it, but I am struck how arrogant many of the anti-religion articles are. One in particular just strikes me as ridiculous, a part of which I am going to briefly focus on here. The essay is titled “Religious Faith Will Decline” by Burnham Beckwith. The point of the essay is that religion will decline as society “progresses,” something he and other atheistic idealists have been saying since the Enlightenment. Beckwith gives numerous reasons why religion will eventually die out, including scientific discovery and social reforms. However, the reason he gave that struck me as the most far-fetched is this: “the growth in the influence of very intelligent persons.”

In discussing intelligence and religion, Beckwith begins with the assertion that the more intelligent people are, the less religious they are. I was looking for a reference to back up this broad assertion, or a clear definition of “intelligence,” but he provides neither. Beckwith then asserts that religion will die out because people of superior intelligence are in positions of power in the media (TV, etc) and our educational systems, thus positively influencing the unintelligent masses. As highly-intelligent people breed (like university professors marrying each other), future generations will be more intelligent and have no need for religion.

I couldn’t help but laugh after reading this. First, as I said above, some scientific studies and a definition of “intelligence” would be helpful. I would bet the farm that Beckwith just happens to consider himself one of these “persons of superior intelligence,” so we probably only need to look to what he believes to understand superior intelligence. Second, where does he get the idea that people in the media and in our educational system are intelligent across the board? In Massachusetts, public school teachers were failing state-mandated tests because a good chunk of them were writing sentences without verbs. If superiorly intelligent individuals ran the educational system, our students would be more competitive worldwide. Trust me, I believe many educators are intelligent (I teach in a public school), but if our educational system is run by the best-and-brightest, where are the superior results? Perhaps Beckwith has higher education in mind. Having attended undergraduate and graduate schools, I have found that critical thought is often in short supply, despite claims otherwise. A recent study suggests that college graduates are unprepared for even basic intellectual tasks, like balancing a checkbook. Third, as to the media…well, if Brittany Spears is my intellectual superior and “American Idol” the embodiment of intelligence, then I prefer to stay stupid! Besides, many media types are into new-age religion, which is hardly “intelligent” as an atheist like Beckwith would define the term. Fourth, a truly intelligent individual would not allow himself to be uncritically influenced by the media or an educational system anyway, no matter how super-smart our teachers and newscasters may be. Fifth, is there evidence that academics marrying each other leads to intelligent and irreligious kids? The bigger question would be “are academics even marrying these days?” And I am not talking about being married to a career. Ok, that was a bit of a red herring, but I still would like to see evidence to back up what Beckwith says about academics.

I think the problem with Beckwith, and many atheists, is that they automatically equate atheism with “intelligence” and religiosity with “stupidity.” This is simply not true: many atheists hold to their beliefs just as uncritically as do Christian fundamentalists, especially now that atheism has become more popular and accepted. Many former atheists, including Jennifer over at The Reluctant Atheist, can attest to the reality of thoughtless atheism.

I doubt religion will ever die out, but I do know one thing that has died out: the kind of uncritical modernist atheist idealism that Beckwith supports.

Cross posted to An Aid To Memory