As many are aware, the Bishops of England and Wales have re-instituted abstaining from meat on Fridays. Many are also celebrating this. My intent here is not so much to focus on that particular decision (love it!) but to relate a story.
During a homily several years ago, a local retired priest talked about the changes after Vatican II. In his mind, all of those traditions before the council such as abstaining from meat on Fridays were a great thing. Yet he thought it was terrible the Church has laws for such. In his mind, the spirit of Vatican II was to renew the Church so people would no longer need to be told to fast, they would fast out of the willingness of their heart, and he encouraged us to do the same.
I remember reacting to the homily the same way I react to a Christopher West talk: Equal parts inspiration and revulsion, normally at the same moment. Such a view is utterly Pelagian. The Pelagian heresey (in a nutshell) denied original sin and its effects. Whether it be through discipline or just intellectual belief, man could eventually re-order his life without divine grace. He was strong enough to do it on his own, he needed no outside force to conform him.
The Scriptures tell a far different story. Even a just man like St. Paul proclaims for the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. This is called concupisence. As a result of original sin, there exists not only a tendency towards sin, but a tendency towards laziness. We know we should do something. Yet advancing in virtue is such hard work! Why not just stay where we are?
In a world unaffected by original sin, there would be no need for any law, civil or religious. Though James Madison wasn't Catholic, he was absolutely right when he stated that if men were angels, government would be unneccessary. This applies just as much in the ecclesial realm. There are indeed some who choose to do something simply out of a desire to do right. Yet very rarely wil they make that choice consistently throughout their entire life.
As one who has gone now 7 years abstaining from meat on Friday, at times it can be harder than you think. You do have to re-align your eating choices. You may have to change where you go out to eat. If a friend cooks for you, they may have to take that into consideration. That involves a lot of work. I might not be bound by a Church law to abstain from meat, though you are required to give up something.
These kind of laws server ultimately as guides. They remind people of penance, and our neccessity to perform penance. They encourage a cultural identity and unity amongst Catholics in a common goal. Without such "laws", chaos reigns.
One could consider it a "law" that when you pray the Hail Mary, you say the words of the prayer as people understand them. Can you imagine people gathering together in prayer for the Hail Mary and just making up the words as they go along? Would anyone be able to pray in such a setting? Yet the Hail Mary imposes on us certain words and phrases, which contain certain teachings. In reciting them, we call them to our mind, and reflect upon those teachings. Likewise with a "law" of fasting and abstinence: eventually, we should be pondering why the Church is having us to do this, reading her justifications for it. Through that act, we begin to ponder how this is related to our own holiness and the Gospel.
In public worship, we have rubrics that are followed in the liturgy. Knowing what the liturgy contains, we are able to dive deeper into contemplating said worship and entering into it. You can't enter into something you don't know about, at least not without great struggle.
This was the so called "Spirit of the Council" in a nutshell. That it had nothing to do with the actual documents is for the moment irrelevant. Thanks to an inflated sense of self-worth, far too many in positions of authority felt that everyone was good and holy enough to do the right thing on their own. Their faithful were better than St. Paul. We saw how that worked out.
I welcome reality beginning to reassert itself in the Church.
During a homily several years ago, a local retired priest talked about the changes after Vatican II. In his mind, all of those traditions before the council such as abstaining from meat on Fridays were a great thing. Yet he thought it was terrible the Church has laws for such. In his mind, the spirit of Vatican II was to renew the Church so people would no longer need to be told to fast, they would fast out of the willingness of their heart, and he encouraged us to do the same.
I remember reacting to the homily the same way I react to a Christopher West talk: Equal parts inspiration and revulsion, normally at the same moment. Such a view is utterly Pelagian. The Pelagian heresey (in a nutshell) denied original sin and its effects. Whether it be through discipline or just intellectual belief, man could eventually re-order his life without divine grace. He was strong enough to do it on his own, he needed no outside force to conform him.
The Scriptures tell a far different story. Even a just man like St. Paul proclaims for the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. This is called concupisence. As a result of original sin, there exists not only a tendency towards sin, but a tendency towards laziness. We know we should do something. Yet advancing in virtue is such hard work! Why not just stay where we are?
In a world unaffected by original sin, there would be no need for any law, civil or religious. Though James Madison wasn't Catholic, he was absolutely right when he stated that if men were angels, government would be unneccessary. This applies just as much in the ecclesial realm. There are indeed some who choose to do something simply out of a desire to do right. Yet very rarely wil they make that choice consistently throughout their entire life.
As one who has gone now 7 years abstaining from meat on Friday, at times it can be harder than you think. You do have to re-align your eating choices. You may have to change where you go out to eat. If a friend cooks for you, they may have to take that into consideration. That involves a lot of work. I might not be bound by a Church law to abstain from meat, though you are required to give up something.
These kind of laws server ultimately as guides. They remind people of penance, and our neccessity to perform penance. They encourage a cultural identity and unity amongst Catholics in a common goal. Without such "laws", chaos reigns.
One could consider it a "law" that when you pray the Hail Mary, you say the words of the prayer as people understand them. Can you imagine people gathering together in prayer for the Hail Mary and just making up the words as they go along? Would anyone be able to pray in such a setting? Yet the Hail Mary imposes on us certain words and phrases, which contain certain teachings. In reciting them, we call them to our mind, and reflect upon those teachings. Likewise with a "law" of fasting and abstinence: eventually, we should be pondering why the Church is having us to do this, reading her justifications for it. Through that act, we begin to ponder how this is related to our own holiness and the Gospel.
In public worship, we have rubrics that are followed in the liturgy. Knowing what the liturgy contains, we are able to dive deeper into contemplating said worship and entering into it. You can't enter into something you don't know about, at least not without great struggle.
This was the so called "Spirit of the Council" in a nutshell. That it had nothing to do with the actual documents is for the moment irrelevant. Thanks to an inflated sense of self-worth, far too many in positions of authority felt that everyone was good and holy enough to do the right thing on their own. Their faithful were better than St. Paul. We saw how that worked out.
I welcome reality beginning to reassert itself in the Church.
"I remember reacting to the homily the same way I react to a Christopher West talk: Equal parts inspiration and revulsion, normally at the same moment. Such a view is utterly Pelagian. The Pelagian heresey (in a nutshell) denied original sin and its effects. Whether it be through discipline or just intellectual belief, man could eventually re-order his life without divine grace. He was strong enough to do it on his own, he needed no outside force to conform him."
ReplyDeleteBecause Pelagianism doesn't believe the grace of original creation is extinguished. After all, any literate person reading the story in Genesis 3 does not see a fall in the sense of losing any ability. Does not the text say plainly that when Adam and Eve ate the fruit they gained the knowledge of good and evil which they previously did not have? Does not God speak in that text saying "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil?" Rather than becoming morally disabled as you and the moronic Gnostic heretics called Calvinists teach, this text plainly shows that man's moral ability was hightened. In fact, one can say that man received a grace from the sacrament of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In fact it appears clear that God used reverse psychology on them to get them to eat the fruit. (The snake, according to the text, by the way, was just a snake "The most cunning of the BEASTS OF THE FIELD which the Lord God had made," 3:1 I think) Your reading of the story does not follow the text, but follows some Manichean paraphrase!!!!
Yet, telling people they have to fast on a certain day is NOT Pelagian.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, how is what I said Calvinist or Manichean? Do you actually know what either one teaches?
ReplyDeleteWhere do you get the idea that God is a duplicitious God? If partaking of the fruit of the tree was a gift, God would not have withheld it. God said "do not partake of the tree" because it was meant to be something beyond their grasp. Some things were not meant to be partaken of or done.
And yes, telling people they have to fast on a certain day certainly isn't Pelagian. All Christians are required by divine law to do penance. Even Protestants recognize this, since the neccessity of repentance is emphasized.
I think it's very good that you used the term "Pelagian" here, since it really brings out the true problem.
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking more and more about this issue, and I (and others) have come to the conclusion that the Bishops had an over-inflated confidence in man, such that they trusted man would do the right thing. Now on it's own, there is nothing wrong with this idea since it's obviously a higher act of virtue to do something without compulsion, but by mentioning the term Pelagian you introduce a 'theological' element to this. Could it be the Bishops were deceived into embracing an Enlightenment view of man, which has a component of Pelagianism (and other similar errors) to it? It reminds me of the "modern" parenting practices where the Parents take a more hands-off approach trusting the child will do the right thing, not realizing a child needs structure.
Such an approach is part of the Liberal-Modernist scheme and trend and also behind the false ecumenical outreaches.
Closely connected with this is the idea of a "Cultural identity marker" (especially in Secular/Protestant lands such as America) which was essentially annihilated for the last few decades. In this case a law would be for unifying purposes just as much as penitential.