As you well know the Catholic Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin remained so throughout her life.
Some of our protestant brothers and sisters point to certain verses in the Gospels that mention the "Brothers and sisters" of the Lord. Or, "James, the brother of the Lord." They find in these compelling evidence against traditional Catholic teaching.
But something occurred to me the other day as I was thinking about this matter. It is by no means a conclusive piece of evidence, but it is certainly persuasive. If Jesus had brothers and sisters, or if His half-brother in the flesh were actually the James who was to head the synagogue in Jerusalem, why, on the Cross did He entrust His mother to the care of John?
If James really were his brother in the flesh and really was a follower and did lead the chief group of early Christians, would it not have made more sense to consign his Mother's livelihood to His own family?
Again, this is not compelling. But it is as persuasive as the arguments that refuse to consider the actual meaning of the terms in Aramaic.
At long last, the Orlando diocese has the indult Mass. It is now celebrated at two different parishes in the diocese. Unfortunately, the closest to me will be about 45 min to an hour away. However, I can manage that once in a while. I have no intention of leaving my parish, but I would like to experience what everyone seems to be raving about. I have a suspicion that it might not be my cup of tea--but we'll see.
Over at Disputations, I prevailed upon Tom's hospitality to compose an very long answer to a gentleman who objects to the Catholic Church's "interpretation of Scripture." In reading his comments I (perhaps erroneously) inferred that he seemed to think that the Church hands down a line-by-line interpretation of the Scripture. Here is my response to him;
You say the Rock is Peter. I say the Rock is the truth of acknowledging Christ as the Son of God and Lord of my life and a promise Christ gives to all Christians. Catholics then say, that’s why we have the authority to interpret all scripture because that’s how we interpreted this verse of scripture. [A quotation from my correspondent]
Need it be one or the other? Can the rock not be both? Is it not possible that Peter was chosen as the rock upon which the Church would be built because of his faith in Jesus Christ, and we each are expected to have that faith, and yet, just as at the Cross we are given a mother, in this moment we are given a shepherd.
I don't see the two as contradictory. I see them as mutually supportive. The Church teaches that this verse is what established the Church, but she does not limit the meaning to that.
What people outside the Church do not thoroughly understand is that there is remarkably little scripture that is authoritatively interpreted by the Church. And even when so, it is more often than not that the meaning is not circumscribed, merely elucidated. That is, the meaning that is important to central Church doctrine is enunciated without prejudice to other possible meanings.
The Church gives definitive guidance in how to read and how to interpret scripture, but only very rarely does she pronounce on THE meaning of a passage. She leaves the faithful to read and interpret within the guidelines she offers. And these guidelines, the fruit of centuries of work and experience, are such that they do not so much circumscribe meaning as they give meaningful help in guiding the conscience so that we do not get the multiple schism of the Protestant Church.
What you fail to acknowledge in all of this, is the sheer chaos that comes from unbounded personal interpretation of Scripture.
I've regaled a great many with the tale of how my Grandfather's fundamentalist Baptist Church split into two new Churches over the question of whether women should wear panty-hose or not.
Given my choice between the two systems, I would prefer to interpret scripture in accordance with Tradition and with the understanding that Scripture has held through the ages.
For example, presently, many would have us read the scriptures prohibiting homosexual congress to mean a very isolated instance of a specific problem that is more related to temple worship than to homosexuality. The Church definitively teaches that homosexual congress is a sin. There are few others who do so, and those that do, for example, the Southern Baptist Convention, has no authority to do so by their own understanding of the Scriptures. That is, if all personal interpretation is equally valid, then the "authority" of the Church has no right to a definitive interpretation. Believers must accept the guidance of the individual conscience and cannot conclusively state that the Bible prohibits homosexual congress.
There are those in the Catholic Church who would like this to be the way we operate. But we do not. The Magisterium definitively interprets the scriptures to say that homosexual congress is illicit, immoral, and sinful.
I have faithfully sat on both sides of this fence, and I can tell you that the freedom that comes from not having to know everything about the Bible and the languages in which it was written and what was meant by this phrase and that, is exhilarating.
My experience has always been that the self is a tyrant, and that tyranny is often forced on others, even when the Churches are hammering away at Sola Scriptura.
If, indeed, a Church truly operates on Sola Scriptura then one must grant that the only legitimate approach to scripture is the individual encountering the word, and therefore, tradition, authority, or other extrinsic factors count for nothing in the mix. You cannot have sola scriptura and yet expect others to read the same words and come to exactly the same understanding as you have.
When the Church interprets scripture, she does so in a limited sense to clarify and to assure the unity of the faithful. If you read through the Fathers and the Saints, you'll find dozens, hundreds, thousands of different interpretations even of key scriptures. Only in a rare event are these problematic, usually when they lead to a significant misunderstanding of the nature of God or of Jesus Christ.
The Church does not authoritatively offer a line by line understanding of the Bible. Rather, she provides guidance for the reading of Scripture AND clarification of those scriptures on which our Doctrine and Dogma defend. Without the Church we have no doctrine of the trinity (no where explicitly spelled out in the Bible) we have no "of the same substance" with reference to the Godhead, etc.
So I would respectfully submit that you may have some misconceptions about precisely how the Church handles and interprets scripture and what she demands of her children with respect to these interpretations and with respect to reading the Bible. You do not abandon freedom upon entering the Church--you are shown the true outlines of freedom. There is greater freedom in knowing the boundaries (and greater safety) than in wandering the fields dependent only upon ourselves (even with the assistance of the Holy Spirit) for not falling off a cliff. The multiplicity of Protestant faiths speak clearly of the dangers of a lack of central authority in understanding faith.
While it is always bad form to use oneself as an example, I thought it might be instructive to present how lectio make take form in one's mind. This session is from this evening when I picked up in the midst of my favorite book, read through about a paragraph and was struck by something at the very beginning. There is nothing stunning, nor even enlightening here for those of you who live outside this body--all that I offer is a look at what might go on in Lectio. Often I create my silence in the midst of writing. When I write the entire world passes away except for the words in my head and whatever I am using to write. I prefer the experience of writing with pen and paper, and thus more often take notes on my palm than at the keyboard. Nevertheless, here is the offering.
Phillippians 1:12
I want you to know, brethren, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the Gospel.
These words of Paul force me to reflect--do my own actions, my own life, serve to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ? When people look at me do they see the joy of Christian living? Does my demeanor suggest to the world the fullness of the truth and joy that resides in Jesus Christ? Paul was able to sing and rejoice in prison. He was able to look upon the most deplorable of circumstances and rejoice for what he saw there. When people who know me well look at me, do they see and understand the joy of Gospel life?
What Paul seems to be telling us here is that a life lived in Christ must perforce reveal Jesus Christ. It cannot do otherwise. It is impossible that we cold live fully in Christ and not make Him known to the world. Conversely, that we do not dailymake Him present to others is most suggestive about our willingness to live fully in Him.
I cannot give up self even for Self that is more glorious. To be born again in Christ gives us a "new self" that is already living the kingdom.
So you see the simple fruit of perhaps fifteen minutes with the scripture and another five or so writing it out as it took form. I offer the writing as my prayer to God, not as instruction, not as exhortation, not as anything more than a personal session with the scripture. I think you can understand why I love scripture as much as I do. I only wish I could be as consistent in expressing this love as I am about running my mouth on other matters.
(for those who care.)
While I am fascinated by disputations and controversies in doctrine, dogma, and practice, I have to admit to not be terribly interested in the things that divide us as Catholics. That is not to say that these issues are not important, they are. However, I know what I believe, when what I believe is challenged or proven to be incorrect, I take steps to correct it, and that is as much as is required of me. The truth of the matter is I haven't the wherewithal to correct the errors of others. Moreover, I often find myself in sympathy with the motives of those who hold erroneous beliefs, if not with the belief itself.
On issues of practice and discipline, I hold no fixed belief. I was not raised Catholic and so I do not revere the celibate life the way those born to the faith might. It little matters to me whether a priest is married or unmarried so long as his first and overwhelming love is the Lord.
On issues of doctrine, I am somewhat less flexible. I will continue to hold with the Church that the ordination of women is not licit until such time as I hear otherwise. However, I have no intention of or interest in trying to prove this to anyone else. It simply doesn't matter. I don't believe that when one approaches the gates of heaven after living life in a state of grace, helping God's poor, and partaking of the sacraments that one will be excluded on the basis of believing that women should be ordained.
I hold to the truth and I pray for those who differ--not for fear of their souls (in most cases) but rather in respect for the truth. If what I believe is true, then it is the only thing worth believing. If it is false, then it should be excised. I leave to finer, more honed minds than my own the excision, submitting myself to the correction of the Church. However, I am not a surgeon. My part in the body is not to excise error, but to encourage love and devotion. This is something I feel equipped to do. This is something I can understand and which requires no great grasp of the intricacies of the faith, but rather a desire. Truth supports this desire, which is why it is always necessary to be in touch with truth; however, truth isn't necessarily the desire itself.
I cannot correct error. I don't think in the ways necessary and at this point have no desire to think that way. I'm afraid I tend to be on the side of Unapologetic Catholic in these matters--many of the apologists for the faith have personalities that would send St. Thérèse into screaming tantrums. The truth need not be abrasive, nor need it be present caustically. In fact, the truth can be presented in any number of ways outside of argument--and that is where I am called. I love God and I can share God's call to His love in my own inadequate fashion. I leave to other, differently attuned minds the defense of the faith. As their honed arguments and presentations bring the flock in, I will feed and water and care for them as best I can. My position is not that of master, but servant and most appealingly as servant of all God's servants. My rule is love. It can lead to excesses and there is the danger of indifferentism, but not so long as prayer informs everything I do. I cannot be indifferent to the Truth, because the Truth is what I love and what I desire others to love. I may not be able to see and articulate the fullness of the truth with the skill of some others. But what I can see, I desire to make known as clearly as God can make possible for me.
The chief part of lectio is listening to scripture. This means engaging the word of God on some level. How does one go about it?
Well, that depends on who one is in Christ. God has made each person different from all others. The means He uses to speak to each of us will vary with the means of the persons He is addressing. In lectio you are practicing listening and so you must find the "posture" that best allows you to listen.
Now, listening is an active process. We've all heard about active listening--listening in which we show our attention by nodding, by looking the speaker in the eye, by asking questions that help to clarify the point. All of these are important skills that engage both the person speaking and the listener. In lectio you can employ some of these skills. In considering a bible text, one does well to follow St. Teresa of Avila's famous advice:Mira que le mira--roughly--"Look at who is looking at you." (Autobiography Ch. 13). Surely the first step in listening is to look at the One who speaks. Take a moment and place yourself at His feet as Mary (of Martha and Mary fame) did. And look at Him while He speaks. You will need to employ the imaginative faculty to do this, but it can be done. Look at His face and listen to the words of scripture, His personal word to you. Look at Him closely enough to see that His exclusive interest is you. His entire love is directed at you and your salvation. His complete attention is devoted to you. In the back of your mind you may also realize that this is true of every single person on Earth. So as you sit looking, you can see what so many on Earth never take the time to see. You can see how Jesus longs for us to bend an ear, to listen--to pay attention.
For some, this exercise can be too much of a trial. The strain of trying to imagine Jesus looking at one can be overwhelming. If you cannot, for any reason, bear the weight of that gaze, then start more simply. There are as many ways of listening as there are people. When Jesus speaks, He often speaks in story. The same is true of much of the Old Testament. The story carries the message meant for you. The story is a small seed meant to grow. To grow it must be planted and watered in the imagination. In the previous post, I mentioned that it may be fruitful to consider the same text on several days. This is particularly true if you are just starting and trying to get the hang of what is going on. As you listen to the words of scripture, picture them in your mind. After your reading, close the bible, marking the place with a marker, or a finger and simply close you eyes. See what it was that you just read. In some cases, for example the Letters, it can be difficult to see things because the letter tend to be doctrinal, and written instruction. For this reason, it is probably better not to start with the letters, but to look first at the Life of the Savior. Nearly everything we know comes to us as pictures. Read a passage, close you eyes and see the scene. Place yourself there--look at every blade of grass, every flower, feel the breeze or the heart, feel the exhaustion or the elation. Be present. In being present we begin to hear. Too often we are troubled with the events of the day or with the constant restless movement of the intellect. If we are concentrating on participating in the event described, the intellect will have no room to wander, we will not be able to stray from the text. If we are seeing it and listening for what God means for us to hear in the text, we will have little time for our own concerns.
This form of imaginative participation in the scripture can bear great fruits for those who practice it faithfully. It can inform your prayer of the rosary and become a constant, higher starting point from which to begin prayer. At first you may not see the point, but eventually as you continue and as you listen, you will begin to hear things that you have not heard from the scripture before.
Another way to listen is to play with the words. Read them and then read them again accenting them differently. For example:
"A voice cries out in the wilderness make straight a pathway for God."
We can read this verse in many ways--but let me present two possibilities.
"A voice cries out in the wilderness
make straight a pathway for God."
In this case it is the voice that is in the wilderness.
"A voice cries out
in the wilderness make straight a pathway for God."
In this case the pathway for God is to be constructed in the wilderness.
Now these two variations have profound resonances against one another. They are not contradictory, they are complementary. Together they ring changes on a theme and broaden the implications of the scripture. We can acknowledge that sometimes the lone voice of conscience cries out to us, "Straighten up, confess, and let God in." This voice leads us to move toward God. And sometimes the voice says to us, "You need a time apart, a time of refreshment, a time to enter the wilderness of self and find there the Pearl of Great price, the seed of the kingdom of heaven."
Much of scripture is this way. You can read it one day and hear one thing, and return to it the next and hear something quite different and quite stirring. For this reason, the version you read for lectio can be important. You need not only to understand it, but to be inspired by it. This is one of the reasons I keep promoting the KJV or the Authorized Version--not because it is the most accurate translation, but because it was the Bible of my youth and the language that I grew to know and love deeply. The words themselves are enough to move me to transports of joy. Sometimes I can sit and just listen over and over again to a single line, to one word from the Lord. "Rejoice in the Lord alway again I say rejoice." "The voice of the turtle was heard in the land. . ." etc. Obviously, this does not have the same resonance through all people and will not have the same profound movement within them. Therefore, find the version that makes your heart sing simply to read it, and then read it, over and over again, delighting in the word, delighting in the line. Delight always to come before the Lord. I think of the hours that I have spent with the single have line, "You see now as in a glass darkly. . ." The sheer magic of that language moves me and speaks to me and it speaks so deeply that I cannot utter the words that it says. They simply invigorate love in a way I do not myself understand, but which I gratefully accept.
Also, with active listening, we ask questions. Do not be afraid to say, "What did you mean when you said, " Why do you trouble me, Woman?" Is that any way to address your mother?' And then listen for the answer--perhaps it is, "I addressed my Mother as Woman, because She is the New Eve, the beginning of all Women and the Mother of those reborn in Christ. She is indeed the archetype of Woman and the exemplar for all time. There is no distance here, there is no denigration. Rather, I have raised her and placed in the place of highest regard." Or perhaps, you will hear something else. But ask where you have doubts and listen intently. If you ask in simplicity, not like the Pharisee seeking to catch Jesus in some trap, the answer will come in time and the answer will change your life.
Lectio will improve your prayer life. Lectio will give strong roots to the depth of your love. Lectio will invigorate your faith and your devotion.
From time to time in the past, I have shared some instances of my own Lectio. You can find the fruits of these, and the methods I used to move toward them by clicking "Lectio" in the side column.
The irresistable allure of the prose even in translation decided for me: Shadow of the Wind. I'll be sure to let you all know how it turns out.
What to Read?
You can see by the review that I finished a relatively unsatisfying read last night and now three fiction books loom before me as possibilities:
The Romanov Prophecy Steve Berry(not Legacy as I erroneously posted last night
Sanibel Flats Randy Wayne White
The Shadow of the Wind Carolos Ruiz Zafón
Of this last, perhaps my correspondents in Spain can better inform me, but the translation appears to offer some linguistic delights. Among them this moment from the very beginning:
from The Shadow of the Wind
Carolos Ruiz ZafónA few of his chums grumbled in assent. Barceló signaled to a waiter of such remarkable decrepitude that he looked as if he should be declared a national landmark. . . .
"I hate to bring up the subject," Barceló said, "but how can ther be jobs? In this country nobody ever retires, not even after they're dead. Just look at El Cid. I tell you, we're a hopeless case."
And there were about three quotable lines in between. The premise is intriguing. A young boy is taken into a place called "The Cemetary of Lost Books" where he finds one called Shadow of the Wind, the last novel of Juliá Carax. In pursuing Carax's work, the boy discovers that every copy of his novels is being systematically destroyed--he may own the last copy of Shadow of the Wind. Don't know much more than that from the cover, but it sounds very Perez-Reverte. The blurbs say, "Gabriel Garcia Marquez meets Umberto Eco meet Jorge Luis Borges." Not a promising blurb, I'll grant you, rather like a raspberry, chicken, and asparagus milkshake. Nevertheless, I take the point that we're talkling postmodern aesthetic encounters magic realism. I should have thought comparison to the remarkable The Club Dumas would have been suffiicient--the novel already shares some similarities in plot elements.
But decisions, decisions. l rather think I should speed through the first two to land in the third and spend my time.
Even for a light thriller, this was a disappointment. Although author Steve Berry sets up and interesting scenario, the denouement was a bloodbath of unparalleled and utterly unforecast and unnecessary violence. The plot and characters reeked of Ubermensch and the storyline nearly fell apart about midway through. Utterly unconvincing.
While the book has been compared to The DaVinci Code there are few, if any similarities. The puzzle is not so neatly constructed and the writing might, if anything, be a step below that of DaVinci. Yes, I know the Catholic community reserves its special animus for Mr. Brown's magnum opus--but the writing is not nearly so bad as that of at least two Catholic writers I can think of off-hand, and for thriller stuff, not nearly as bad as a good many I have read--Mr. Berry's opus among them. On the other hand, this was a first novel, and there are glimmers here and there of real ability, so it is with something like anticipation that I look forward to reading The Romanov Legacy although another work by a Spanish author will intervene.
TSO recounts the angst of choosing among many possible books to back for one's vacation. Much of this horror is allieviated in the light of the all powerful PDA, which allows me to pack literally thousands of (public domain) books in a small 8 oz package--no extra luggage weight, less angst.
Nevertheless, the time looms for my own vacation and it is with some trepdiation that I face similar packing difficulties. The problem is the slew of books not available in public domain and not legitimately available as e-books.
So, I too face the same problem. The categories of reading are as always: Fiction, Poetry, Spiritual, and non-ficiton of some sort. I don't read as much history as TSO, so I'm likely to pick up a Richard Pickover or a Benoit Mandelbrot or a Simon Conway Morris. This time I've got a distracting little tome on Intelligent Design. Also I'm going to stay with my green friend in Naples, so a little Pat Buchanan might be in order, simply as fuel for the fire. There's an enticing little prospect at the library titled Men in Black and chronicling the judicial usurpation of legislative authority.
As for TSO, I will help him with unasked-for advice. Take Helena--read it, savor it, enjoy it. It's a wonderful book for vacation or otherwise. In fact, anyone taking a reading vacation--take Helena--the least bitter of Waugh's books and perhaps the best biography (because he gave himself leeway to use his real talents in the composition of it). Helena is a light read and a heavy read all in one. You don't need to labor over it, the prose dances and sings, the novel speeds along in its course to the end--completely satisfying in every regard. Truly a work for any time, any where. (And if you don't like it, well, as far as this blog is concerned, opinions are a dime a dozen and you get what you pay for.)
This time, a 2005/2002 time warp.
The Space BetweenMore times than not,
the space between
dominates all.
You cannot be
closer if there
is no distance
to begin with.Living spaces
never/always
filled. The space where
I wait for you.Because there are
open spaces,
interior
places made for
fillling. And with
You the pattern
is completed
as no other.Frozen instants
when nothing is
and one second
flashes over
into the next.
Those strained spaces
flash on and off
with passing time
so fast no one
else can see them.I say say you
love me in a
space between soup
and meat between
myself and cool
sheets. I say show
me as space turns
on and off. I'm
sure you can't fill
the space between.So I'm surprised
again as you
never fail to
fill the empty
spaces your lips
against mine, our
bodies bending
the space between.© 2005, Steven Riddle
And the original--actually the third revision circa 2002
The Space Between
I.
More often than not,
the space between
dominates. You cannot be
closer if there
is no distance
to begin.More simply:
the space between seconds
makes time flow evenly.
Measure it down to
size unimaginablefinally
there is a break
when one second spills
over into the next.More importantly:
the breathing
spaces, the livingspace
never/always filled,
the space where
I waitfor you. Because some
spaces
interiorplaces were made to be
filled. You complete
the pattern as
no other.
II.The frozen instants
when nothing is
and one second flashes
over into another.
Those strained spaces
flash on and off
with passing time
so fast no one can see.I say
say you love me
in the space between
the soup and meat
between myself
and the cool sheets.
I say show me
as space turns on
and off. I'm sure
you can't
fill the space
between us.So I'm surprised
again and again
as you never fail to
fill the empty spaces
your lips against mine,
our bodies bending
the space between.© 2005, Steven Riddle
In this case, I didn't formalize the structure as much. There is no rhyme scheme--deliberately, but the line length is dictated syllabically. The plus side of this is that it forces language control and energizes the lines naturally. In the "free verse version" there were all sorts of spacing tricks and line break tricks to beef up what is really pretty lame in terms of line breaks. In addition, there is an odd sort of relativity element that intrudes and nearly takes over the middle of the poem. By forcing the lines into strict syllable counts, I also force the directness of thought. What happens is that the first part of the poem takes on a "Song of Solomon" like love poem quality in which the speaker appears to address God. It only becomes clear in the last stanza that he addresses God through the person most immediately with him. There's still work to be done--but I thought you'd like to see what goes on in a poetry workshop--how things are shaped, cobbled together, taken apart and restructured. In actuality, I had to go back to a version of this poem composed in 1984 to get to the new version. That is why versioning is so important, and why the computer at once does us a service and a disservice. Too often we leave no paper record of all the versions and this is bad because it is sometimes an early or intermediate version that more directly inspires the finished product. Anyway--here's one more example of how to build a poem--and this, as always is awaiting polish.
You're not going looking for great story. You are not going looking for profound resonance for the ages. You aren't going to learn something about human nature.
And it's a good thing.
On the other hand, you're going because a young one in the house sees paranoid penguin commandoes and knows that this is THE film to see. You're going because you want to see how a New York lion fares in Madagascar. You're going (although you may not know it yet) because life among the lemurs is a whole lot of fun punctuated by moments of extreme terror.
And you do after all like to "Move it, move it, you like to move it, move it."
And, if the little ones enjoy it, isn't it worthwhile after all? The answer, I'm looking for, of course is yes.
Recommended--good for an entire family of brainless fun.
First, the new version:
And Like Shadows, Flow Away
Meet me on the plain of glass, fly to me
there where we name us the summit of all.
Come to me across the water, I see
you chasing reflections until you fall
in love with a shadow twin. Together
we will bind reflection, shackle shadows
until we, lords of the world though we may
be, fold up and like shadows flow away.
© 2005, Steven Riddle
And the version circa 2002:
And Like Shadows, Flow Away
Meet me on a plain
of glass.
Fly to me there
where
we are the only monuments.
Come to me
across the water
chasing your reflection
until you fall
in love
with a shadow
twin. Together
we will bind
our reflections,
shackle
the shadows that chase
us. And flow away.
© 2005, Steven Riddle
I like the free verse version. It means differently than the more structured version. But I like the meaning imposed by structure. It forces one's hand--you need to make some decisions--for good or for ill. In this case, perhaps to the detriment of the original. But each now makes a statement and the statements are distinctly different.