Per Christum

Even though I mostly enjoy the interviews on American Public Media’s Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippet, the series is usually a little fuzzy-wuzzy and left-of-center for my taste. Hey, it’s public radio, not EWTN…what do you expect?

That’s why I was pleasantly surprised to see both this topic and interviewee on the show:

The Jaroslav Pelikan on “The Need for Creeds”

Audio of the interview (mp3, 53:27)

Episode webpage

The interview with the late theologian and late-in-life convert to the Orthodox Church from Lutheranism was recorded in 2003. He died on May 13, 2006.

Here’s a transcript of an excerpt I found particularly quotable:

Tippet: So, what is it about Christianity that has needed creeds?

Pelikan: Well, what it is about religious faith that needs creed is that religious faith in general, prayer addressed to “to whom it may concern”, sentiment about some transcendent dimension otherwise undefined does not have any staying power. It’s OK to have that at ten o’clock on a Sunday morning when you’re out with your friends somewhere, but in the darkest hours of life you gotta believe something specific. And that specification is the task of the creed. Because, much as some people may not like it, to believe one thing is also to disbelieve another.

Tippet: *curtly* Huh.

Pelikan: To say yes is also to say no.

With the new year just around the corner, I would like to encourage all Catholics to consider becoming better catechists –according to their specific responsibilities as pastors, parents, teachers, etc.– as one of the resolutions for the new year.

For Pope John Paul II’s aspotolic exhortation, click here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2CATEC.HTM

A few days ago I re-published another blogger’s comparison of Bishop Schori & Pope Benedict’s Christmas messages asking readers to compare, contrast and offer thoughts. I wanted to think about how I would formulate what struck me right away.

The difference between them, when comparing and contrasting, was the difference between night and day in a real way. It is a difference in illumination.

These past few nights in my corner of the world the moonlight has been exceptional. Just the other night when the dogs were taking me for a pre-bedtime walk I marveled at how I could have read a book by the light of the moon.

“By the light of the moon” is a funny colloquialism. Truly the moon produces no light, it merely reflects a great light - the sun. While our side of this good earth turns from the sun, the moon reflects the sunlight that is shining on the other side of the world.

I found the difference between the truths and message of hope between the two leaders to be very much like the difference between that noon-day sun in the dessert and even the brightest moonlight that you could read under. One is simply a fuller source.

Looking at B16’s message, it is amazing the layers of Incarnational, Trinitarian and salvation truth/light that are woven seamlessly together. The Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How of salvation, the trinity, the incarnation are all there. Why Jesus was - Son of the Father, Word made Flesh, Salvation of the Universe, historic reality, Judge of nations, Oblation of peace. It is all there implicitly and explicitly. His message is that of a reminder of these truths, a reminder to keep our end before us, as we recall Who came and Why and what in turn is expected of us and then WHY it is expected. “In the twilight of our days on earth, when we are about to die, we shall be judged on the basis of our similarity to the child whose birth shall occur in the plain grotto in Bethlehem since it is He who is the God-given standard by which humanity shall live. ” True bright shining sunlight like noonday in the Sahara.

The KJS text is not false. It is not heretical. It is not in error. There is much truth to it, but in stark comparison and contrast, this sort of writing is vague. There is much to it, but the greater Truth is richer still. It is true inasmuch as it reflects great Truth, but it is moonlight.

“Where can I find references to the Mormon belief that God ‘cursed’ certain people by giving them dark skin?”

“What would the Catholic Church say about the Mormons’ ‘Word of Wisdom’, which proscribes smoking and drinking of tea, coffee, and wine?”

“Who are the ‘other sheep’ Jesus mentions in John 10:16? The Mormons say that verse refers to Jews who allegedly migrated to South America around 600 B.C.”

“I’ve been told that Mormons worship Satan in their temple ceremonies and that they wear satanic symbols on their clothes. Is this true?”

“Mormons condemn as unbiblical the Catholic custom of paying priests and bishops. Are there any verses that support the Catholic position?”

“What exactly is a stake center?”

“I want to bolster my faith with more knowledge, especially on the subject of the nature of God. My Mormon family members constantly challenge my Catholic beliefs, especially that there is only one God. What do you recommend?”

LDS Research Page - More Information

The Catholic Response tothe Mormon Missionaries

Introduction
First in a series of presentations on the Catholic Response to the Mormon Missionaries
Discussion 1
The Plan of Our Heavenly Father
Discussion 2
The Gospel of Jesus Christ
Discussion 3
The Restoration
Discussion 4
Eternal Progression
Discussion 5
Living a Christ-Like Life
Discussion 6
Membership in the Kingdom
Summary
Last in a series of presentations on the Catholic Response to the Mormon Missionaries

Here are 12 myths every Catholic should be able to expose.How many can you answer?

1. Christianity is no better than any other faith. All religions lead to God.
2. Why should I believe the Bible? The Old and New Testaments contradict each other countless times.
3. I don’t need to confess my sins to a priest. I can go straight to God.
4. People’s memories of their past lives prove that reincarnation is true…and that the Christian view of Heaven and Hell is not.
5. Properly interpreted, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.
6. If the Church truly followed Jesus, they’d sell their lavish art, property, and architecture, and give the money to the poor.
7. Catholics should follow their conscience in all things…whether it’s abortion, birth control, or women’s ordination.
8. Dissent is actually a good thing, since we should all keep our minds open to new ideas.
9. There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.
10. I don’t need to go to Church. As long as I’m a good person, that’s all that really matters.
11. Natural Family Planning is just the Catholic version of birth control.
12. Someone can be pro-choice and Catholic at the same time.

[For ANSWERS from Crisis magazine's editor, Deal Hudson, click here.]

H/T: Dr. Philip Blosser’s Homepage

Father Larry Richards
http://www.thereasonforourhope.org/

FREE CDs ($1 shipping donation requested) available at: http://www.catholicity.com/cds/confession.html Given the sampling offered here, it would be a dollar well spent. Get 2 - we all have a friend or neighbor that could use a copy themselves.

I was reading this article on Titus One Nine about an Anglican bishop who does not believe in the miracle of the Virgin birth. Now, I am not sure whether he recites the Nicene Creed weekly, or if he bothers to recite the part that mentions Mary being a virgin, but it raised a question in mind, which is:

Why would you recite a creed that you do not believe in, and in some cases, openly teach against?

Remember, a creed is a statement of belief. Traditionally, it is a statement that all Christians within a particular denomination are expected to believe. Of course, modernism has muddied these waters, and there exist many reasons why a person can recite a statement of belief but not actually believe what he is reciting. Some of these reasons for saying one thing and believing another are rooted in faith and submission, while others seem to be disingenuous.

It is common knowledge that many pastors and leaders in the mainline Protestant denominations publicly deny major Christian creedal beliefs (including the virgin birth, resurrection, and Trinity), although I am sure some Catholic leaders do the same thing. Why would church leaders recite a creed that affirms the very ideas they deny? Note that I am not referring to casual doubters here, but church leaders who, by their position, are expected to teach and defend the creeds. Also, I am not referring to individuals who have moments of doubt, ignorance, or weakness, but folks who have given these issues enough thought to have theological and philosophical arguments against classic Christian doctrines. And yet, many of these individuals still recite the creeds, and still remain leaders in denominations that are supposed to be based on the creeds.

As I write this, I think there are two genuine options in the case of those who cannot honestly recite a creed: either face/work through personal doubts (perhaps even over time) and, through faith, submit to the teachings of the creed in question, or join a church/organization that does not adhere to the particular creed that you cannot affirm. Related to the latter, I think many folks say the creed while doubting, faithfully seeking the Church’s guidance through the doubt, seeking the gift of faith amidst unbelief. I think this is a genuine option, one that recognizes the importance of submission to Christ and His Church, while facing what comes naturally to man: doubt. This, in my opinion, is different than being a church leader and openly denying/teaching against the beliefs contained in the creeds. I think if a person reaches a point where he proudly, openly, and publicly denies creedal beliefs, the latter option (finding another church) is more genuine.

I remember being driven batty by this issue when I was in seminary. That a future minister could trash a classic Christian doctrine in class and then affirm the doctrine by reciting the creed during worship irked me. However, I did meet some students who recognized the disconnect between what they believed and were expected to affirm in the creeds. One lady became Episcopalian because, even though she quit believing in doctrines like Jesus’ deity or his birth from a virgin, she liked singing in the local Episcopal parish choir. Even though I think that this is a poor reason to join a church, I will give her credit on one point: she did not recite the creeds because she didn’t accept their content.

So, what do you think? Is it genuine to recite a statement of belief and not believe what you are saying?