The Magisterium & Personal Intrepretation of Scripture

I read an article from Zenit on the Pope's priority for ecumenism. Here is an interesting excerpt:

Though agreement has been reached that Scripture and Tradition are not opposed, he said, there is still disagreement about, among other things, the role of the magisterium in interpreting it.

You can read the full article here.

For Catholics:

• what is the magisterium and how does it interpret scripture?
  
• Do they declare a single interpretation for a given scripture as valid for all time?
  
• How do you interpret the interpretation of the magisterium?
  
• Is there room for different interpretations across cultures?
  
• Is it like a commentary on scripture?
  
• How does this affect preaching?
• Where can I go to find what the magisterium says about a particular scripture?

For Protestants:

• What does personal interpretation mean?
  
• Does it mean that anything goes?
  
• How does one test their own interpretation?
  
• How are the laity (and clergy) trained to read scripture?
• What role does tradition and authority play in personal interpretation?
• Is there such a thing as a wrong reading of scripture?
  
• What happens when two personal interpretations are mutually exclusive?

Thanks for your answers and comments. Are there other important questions that should be asked?

Two approaches to being a catholic church

I observe that my Christian tradition - Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); and The Catholic Church both attempt to be catholic churches. That is, they both attempt to represent the wholeness (catholicity) of the Church. They both have very divergent approaches to their catholicity.

Disciples attempt to represent the whole through openness. Christians can disagree and yet remain united. There are no creeds, because of the division they may cause. The closest thing Disciples come to a standardized affirmation of faith is “I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior.” If you can affirm this statement (whatever it means to you), you are welcome.

The Catholic Church (capital C), on the other hand have a focus on complete uniformity. Unity in belief, practice, and structure. To be united means to be uniform. Anything outside of the predefined boundaries is not unified.

Neither approach is entirely appropriate. Disciples may err on the side of allowing unorthodoxy. This is unity in word only. That we are not really united, but we will just say we are to make everyone happy.

The Catholic approach on the other hand ignores the biblical and historical testimony of diversity in the Church (in belief, practice, and structure). This unity is not challenging because it is easy to be united to others who are just like oneself.

Disciples often put forth the saying “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity.” To a large extent I like this philosophy, except that essentials are never defined. It begs the question: to what point does liberty lead to heresy? Where are the boundaries of what is acceptable? And how far outside of the core can we venture until we are no longer preaching the Gospel?

Still, a certain level of diversity is absolutely necessary, lest we all become “hands, eyes, or ears.” Diversity is necessiary for the Body of Christ to operate.

How can we be the catholic (universal) church; unitied and yet diverse? What are the essentials which ought to unite us, and where is diversity acceptable?

The empty sacrament

I went to my church's regional (like a diocese or synod) gathering. There were several worship opportunities throughout the event in which communion was served. (We celebrate communion in every worship service)

There was no clear mark which signified an entrance into holy time - that worship was not set apart from our everyday lives. The worship leader just began to sing a song while everyone else continued their conversations. A sermon was given and someone came forward to introduce communion.

They emphasized how all are welcome, with no precondition. Neither sin, creed, nor status of baptism were reasons to separate one from the communion table. That it is a table of hospitality.

As the elements were passed I took and ate. I normally cross myself (as I learned from the Catholics) after I partake in order to mark the holy moment. But, I could not bring myself to do it this time because it felt so very profane. Not profane in the sense that it was irreverent or unholy, but simply ordinary. By the introduction to communion and a stress on symbolism, it was clear that this meal was only bread and juice. It tasted empty.

Do not misunderstand me. I believe communion is for all, invited by Christ. But it is not an ordinary meal like we eat in order to sustain our physical bodies. It is a spiritual food which nourishes the souls of those already united with Christ. It is certainly not a meal which one can approach on one's own terms - for it is Christ's table, not ours.

Emptier still.
Saturday morning we worshiped again. This time the communion elements included pretzels and gold fish crackers. I cannot recall the justification for this practice at this time because I remember feeling so empty at the thought.

Granted, nearly all Christians in this tradition believe communion to be symbolic only. But what happens when you tamper with the symbol? When I approached the communion plate and saw the pretzels and gold-fish crackers I did not think of Christ's last meal, but rather a children's party. For that is what those elements symbolize.

I did not partake. I had to leave the worship service at that point because I was so angry and I took a walk until lunch.

The church said "look how hip, cool, and open WE are that we can do this." I believe Christ was overshadowed by this novelty. It is a feat in mental acrobatics when we attempt to force a new symbol to mean what the bread and wine once meant.

Symbol or not, let us not profane (make ordinary) the Table of the Lord.

Details

It has been awhile since I have made a post here, mostly because nothing of much significance has happened in this area of my life since the summer.

However, I would like to give you some details about that summer discussion we had at chaplain school (as best as my memory will allow).

A bit of background
There was daily chapel for all students, held in the morning before classes began. One for Protestants and one for Roman Catholics. The Protestant chapel was the dominant one, attended by 90% (or more, in a class of 160). The Roman Catholic chapel was smaller with about 15. It was attended by Roman Catholics (of course), Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and myself. So, I was not the only non-Roman Catholic there. It was a small group which led to a greater sense of community.

I remember the first time I attended the chapel. Someone asked "Are you Catholic?" (because you can't tell by looking), and I answered "it depends on what you mean by catholic." He raised his eyebrow, and looked a bit confused, and possibly irritated. I continued "I am not Roman Catholic. But I am catholic, meaning I belong to Christ's universal church."

Occasionally there would be no official chapel on a given day for scheduling reasons, but the Catholics were insistent on having mass, especially on holy days and I would join them. The question eventually came up (knowing I was not Roman Catholic) "So, why do you join us for mass so often as opposed to the Protestant chapel?" And I told them a bit about my story and my struggles with the Protestant Church. This lead to the invitation to dinner and discussion with the priest, 2 seminarians and myself.

The dinner and discussion
We picked a night and went to dinner. We shared our stories. The 2 seminarians, as it turned out joined the Catholic church from Protestant traditions. The priest was a "cradle Catholic." We talked about a crazy man at the priest's church who wore a red collar and pretended to be a priest; our personal faith journey; how one of the seminarians worked for the state department prior to his call.

We were enjoying each others company so we decided to go over to one of the seminarian's room and have a theology-on-tap. Here we got more theological. And I found a great deal of agreement with them. We talked about the Eucharist and real presence, inter-church marriage, liturgy and the sacraments, and Vatican II.

There was disagreement concerning the nature of the church. I argued for a larger-than-structure, universal Christ-Church in which all Christians belonged. The two seminarians argued that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church, and Protestant Churches are only true in that they reflect the Roman Catholic Church. I brought up Ut Unum Sint, and Unitatis Redintegratio concerning the view of protestant churches and an eccumenism of convergence (not individual conversion). For inter-church marriages I brought up Familiaris Consorito, and how it says "The Eucharist is the very source of Christian marriage" (57) that if the Church does not allow a protestant husband and a Catholic wife to share together in the Eucharist we do harm to the foundation marriage. The Eucharist feeds a marriage.

So we were having a nice healthy discussion, finding points of agreement and were we differed. Enter the seminarian's (very) Protestant room-mate. He naturally joins the conversation but shows such cynicism toward the Catholics that it produced no useful discussion. He kept spouting things like "The Bible is the only source of authority, we shouldn't have a Pope." He challenged me once (indirectly) and asked "Why would a Protestant want to take Catholic communion?"

Later he offered an "analogy" of the Catholic Church saying it was like an exclusive club in which you have to jump through many hoops and learn the secret handshake in order to be "in." I offered another (more productive analogy) saying I see Protestants as similar to the Samaritans - separated from the temple with some strange beliefs according to the Jews, and yet Jesus said the Kingdom of God was for the Samaritans too. Protestants might act goofy and deny some pretty important beliefs, but we are like crazy unlce Frank at the family reunion - Still part of the family.

At this point it was fairly late and it was a "school night," so we all went home. I appreciated there time and being able to dig deep in some theology with some fellow seminarians and Christians.

A priest, 2 Roman Catholic seminarians and me

I am at US Army Chaplain School and I had a great opportunity to meet with a priest and two seminarians over dinner last night. We also meet later in their room for some discussion.

Here are just a few things I discovered from the conversation:

• You will end up where God wants you.
• Be patient in discernment.
  
• I am better able to have theological discussions with the Catholics here than I am with most Baptists.

I might dive into some more details of the discussion later, but right now it is lunch time.

How can I share communion with my wife?

The biggest spiritual hindrance to our marriage is that we are not able to share communion at the same table. My wife is Roman Catholic and I am not.

I have approached our pastor and asked to receive and was told that if I want to commune with my wife I would have to become Roman Catholic.

So that means, even though we are united in the sacrament of matrimony and we both have faith in Jesus, we cannot share that faith together at the table - the source and summit of our spiritual lives.

A proposed solution:

I could take some bread from the communion table at my Protestant Church with me to mass. And then my wife could take her communion at Catholic Church back to the pew with her, and then both her and I could communion together.

Or maybe I could just eat the "bread" as she goes forward. As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, I'm just having a snack. While of course, I do understand the bread to be the essence of Christ and is thus communion for me.


What do you think?
What do you think? Good idea, bad idea, got a better idea? What are some theological implications of this solution? What are the theological implications of a husband and wife who do/can not share the Eucharist?

Infant Baptism

My Christian tradition, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) practices exclusively believers baptism, that is adult baptism. The Roman Catholic Church baptizes infants of believers.

This is a particularly difficult issue for us, being in an inter-church family. We had to decide what to do with our children regarding baptism. Admittedly at first, I agreed with my wife to baptize our infant children (when the time comes along) because I thought the Catholic Church was more stubborn on this issue than my church. With some further thought and examination I have come to the conclusion that infant baptism should be the preferred method for children of believers.

I anticipate that this decision may cause some controversy within my church, but I hope to spell out here how we arrived at this decision.

Objection 1: Not scriptural.

The number one objection I hear, or read, regarding infant baptism is that there is no example of it found in scripture. And I would have to admit this fact. Some proponents of infant baptism will point to the household baptisms found in Acts. However, this is not an explicit example of infant baptism. As many say in the Disciples of Christ Church: "Where the scriptures speak, we speak. Where the scriptures are silent, we are silent." In other words: if it isn't in scripture, don't do it.

However, there is also not a single example in scripture of a child of Christian parents who receives baptism as an adult. In fact, there is no example of a 2nd generation Christian baptism.

All baptisms in scripture are adult individuals who come to faith from no faith. If we do our job as Christian parents, this is not the pattern that our children will follow. When we postpone baptism for our children, we are saying that they don't belong to the faithful community, that they don't have faith. This is simply not true.

Scripture provides no instruction on what to do with children of the faithful regarding baptism.

Baptism should mark one's entrance into the faith. For adults this happens when they accept Jesus, repent of their sins, and are baptized. But children of Christian parents are trained in the faith from a very young age, maybe even the day they are born.

Objection 2: Faith is necessary for baptism, infants are incapable of faith, therefore infant baptism is invalid.

How much faith is required for one to be baptized? Should we administer a test? Is faith in the head, or in the heart, and how do you measure it? Also, whose faith matters?

I received baptism as an "adult" at the age of 13. (coincidently, everyone else in my church came to faith at the age 13 also) My faith has certainly grown significantly in the past 10 years. I would say that my faith was insufficient at that age, and thats okay. Our faith will never be perfect, and thats why we cannot rely on it. We need to rely on the faith of God. How little control we have on when and how God chooses us to be part of his family.

The Instruction on Infant Baptism By the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith helps explain this question (14):

The fact that infants cannot yet profess personal faith does not prevent the Church from conferring this sacrament on them, since in reality it is in her own faith that she baptizes them. This point of doctrine was clearly defined by Saint Augustine: "When children are presented to be given spiritual grace," he wrote, "it is not so much those holding them in their arms who present them—although, if these people are good Christians, they are included among those who present the children—as the whole company of saints and faithful Christians.... It is done by the whole of Mother Church which is in the saints, since it is as a whole that she gives birth to each and every one of them."[24] This teaching is repeated by St. Thomas Aquinas and all the theologians after him: the child who is baptized believes not on its own account, by a personal act, but through others, "through the Church's faith communicated to it."[25] This same teaching is also expressed in the new Rite of Baptism, when the celebrant asks the parents and godparents to profess the Faith of the Church, the Faith in which the children are baptized.[26]

What do you think? When should children of Christian parents be baptized? Did I miss anything?