Evangelicals and Catholics: The Pope and the Bible

This was a one page paper for the class Jesus and Hermeneutics at Boston College with Dr. Daniel Harrington S.J. The purpose of the paper was to analyze the Pope’s hermeneutical stance and his treatment of the various epithets of Jesus found in the gospels.

This post is also included in the Evangelicals and Catholics series as a way to disabuse many of my Protestant brethren of (or at least spawn more conversation regarding) the notion that Catholics are not interested in Scripture or scripturally based theological inquiry.

Thesis: While using the historical method, the Pope feels free to move beyond it to theological interpretation, showing the epithets of Jesus to reveal his oneness with God, which has eschatological implications.

Pope Benedict’s hermeneutical stance is one largely shaped by E.D. Hirsch. He praises the historical-critical method and says that it is an indispensable tool[1]. This method can also be seen by his exegetical process in the discussion of the different titles of Jesus. However, he also departs from a purely historical stance and seems to incorporate Ricoeur-like ideas as well. For example, he emphasizes the position that what we have in the gospels is the “‘historical’ Jesus in the strict sense of the word” (xxii). Therefore, he is not interested in getting behind the text to find the “real” Jesus; he emphasizes that what we have is the text (the real Jesus). In addition, reminiscent of Ricoeur’s idea of distanciation he posits that “we can never go beyond the domain of hypothesis, because we simply cannot bring the past into the present” (xvii). The Pope wants to depart from strict historical investigation and move to theological interpretation which he rightly and poignantly admits requires faith (xxiii).

The three epithets which Pope Benedict explores all serve the function of displaying the oneness between Jesus and the Father (homoousios) (320). His exegesis of these three epithets outline the orthodox position: conveying Jesus divinity be association and identification with the Father. In light of the other reading in this course, these titles also convey an eschatological meaning. By using the term “Son of Man,” Jesus reveals his true identity and conceals it in mystery at the same time, analogous to many of his teachings (324). For those who had ears to hear, the loud allusion to Daniel 7 would have carried with it clear eschatological meaning concerning “the coming kingdom of salvation” (327). Pope Benedict provides a great example of this by exploring the story of the paralytic (331). This works well with Wright’s notion of the “inauguration” of the Kingdom. The designation “Son of God” also performs the function of linking Jesus to Father (344), and also brought with it political implications, albeit yet remaining an apolitical system (339). The “I am” statements also “show the inseparability of Father and Son” (348) by screaming in allusion back to the burning bush episode (349). These three titles have roots in OT texts yet are fulfilled in Jesus “as if they had been waiting for him” (354).

[1] Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration (trans. Adrian J. Walker; New York: Doubleday, 2007), xvi. (In-text citations from this point on). 
[2] N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 191. (In-text citations from this point on).

Evangelicals and Catholics: Post-Catholic Evangelicals

I received a good deal of response from the first post in this series on my personal history with Evangelicalism and Catholicism. One of those responses came in the form of a personal journey from a reader who will remain anonymous. The experience described below represents a large phenomenon that I have witnessed in my experience serving in many churches and ministries over the years. Many Evangelical Christians between the ages of 30-70 are "post-Catholic."

     I grew up Catholic.  I went to Catholic school from grades 1-9, so I was heavily indoctrinated in it.  I became extremely scrupulous even afraid I would go to hell because I ate meat inadvertently on a Friday--the ever present guilt about this and many other issues.

     In college I started to question some of the changes that were being made in the Church--the mass was no longer in Latin, eating meat on Friday was no longer a sin, etc.  I questioned how these tenets could be changed by mere men.

     In a few years, I was teaching third grade and some young students were talking about their church.  I was curious at how excited they were about it, so I asked them.   One of their mothers invited me to Mount Prospect Bible Church.  It was there that I accepted Christ as my personal savior.  It was difficult to let go of some of the indoctrination of the Catholic Church, so I kept what I found edifying about it.

     I feel my spiritual personality was rooted in Catholicism.  I love the mass and what it represents.  It is a contemplative means to worship, and I do like that sometimes.

     I have Catholic friends who are passionate about their faith, even more disciplined about worshiping than many "Protestants" friends.

     Every year I desire to go to the Stations of the Cross, and somehow I don't go.  These depict the crucifixion and the journey Christ made.  I remember even as a little girl weeping through those as I saw the injustice of Christ being tortured. It was not thoroughly explained at that time that He did it for me personally.  Maybe this spring I will go and take part in that ceremony to be reminded of what sin costs.

     I feel I am both Catholic and Protestant--a Christian.  I take from both religions what I need to continue my pilgrimage.

This testimony certainly brings a lot of issues out for discussion: "Catholic guilt," catechesis, authority of the Church, etc. But my question is:

Why do many feel the need to leave the Catholic communion for 20th/21st century Evangelicalism.
And what are the implications?

Lest we start Catholic-bashing, there is an equally intriguing phenomenon of modern Evangelical Christians leaving the ranks of Evangelicalism to seek out more "high church," contemplative traditions including Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox traditions.

I hope that anyone reading this post who has experienced one of the spiritual migrations would critically reflect on these issues comment respectfully.

Evangelicals and Catholics: Introduction to a New Series

I have always been interested in the relationship between Catholics and Evangelicals; and on the larger scale between the Catholic Church, and the various forms of Protestantism. From a very early age I was very ecumenically minded (developmentally appropriate for what ecumenism means to an 8 year old, of course). I remember one day while playing at friend’s house, one of the kids in our group asked my friend, “What religion are you?” “Protestant.” He responded. I found myself very confused. I had never heard the word “Protestant” before. I knew he occasionally attended our church, and my mother and his were longtime friends. And I knew what religion I was: I was a Christian! I was surprised that he did not answer with “Christian.” I think we spent the next few minutes arguing over whether he as a Protestant or a Christian. This story of course shows both of our youthful theological naiveté, and I think my mom cleared up the confusion when I got home, but from then on I remember being fascinated by all the different brands and flavors of Christianity, and how it is still all Christianity.

One of my sets of grandparents was Catholic. I remember attending mass with them and my mom sometimes when they came to visit us, or when we went to visit them. We still went even though my mom was no longer a practicing Catholic. I remember one particular instance as the congregation was preparing to celebrate the Eucharist my mother gave me a quick 1 minute catechesis crash course. I had never taken communion in Catholic Church before; I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t even know that according to official position of the (Catholic) Church I wasn’t supposed to take communion. So like any good boy, I did what my mom told me to do. She told me to cup my hands and when the priest put the wafer in my hand and said, “the Body of Christ” to say “Amen.” And that is how I took my first communion (in the Catholic Church anyway). The incident set me on a long road comparing and contrasting the two branches of Christianity.

In high school, I became friends with a girl who was a devout Catholic. Throughout those years I continued to consider the differences, similarities, strengths and weaknesses of both Catholicism and Protestantism. Together we started and led an ecumenical morning prayer and bible study group at our high school. In college, I began the long road of my formal theological training, studying church history gave me a historical framework for dealing with these issues. Catholic-Protestant discussions were a common theme at Gordon, inside and outside of the classroom. During this time also, one of my college friends was thinking about “converting” from Protestantism to Catholicism. While in seminary, I had an opportunity to work for a ministry that did many programs in a Catholic parish, including leading their confirmation programs. Imagine an evangelical teaching Youth Alpha to 50 Catholic teens as part of their confirmation requirement! Now, I am pursuing a Master of Theology with a concentration in biblical studies at Boston College, a Catholic institution. To the amazement of many Protestants, Catholics actually do read their bibles!

The relationship between Catholics and Protestants and their respective faith communities has always been am interest of mine. Therefore, I am starting a new series on this blog to think about and dialogue through some of these issues. I look forward to the results!