Monday, January 4, 2021

Memorial of Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton, religious

Lectionary: 212

This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God.


Saint John Henry Newman, long before his conversion to the Catholic Church, sensed the monophysitism of Protestant prayer and preaching. Although his Anglican communion retained many Roman Catholic rituals and songs, its spirit was essentially Protestant. The more he read of the Church Fathers -- the leading bishops of the fourth century -- the more uncomfortable he felt.
Monophysitism does not explicitly deny the humanity of Jesus. They might say, "He was truly human and he is truly God;" ignoring the subtle difference between was and isIn effect, as he passed through his passion, death, and resurrection, the humanity of Jesus disappeared like a drop of ink in the ocean. He is now One for everyone, neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. We can safely ignore his Jewish origins and his human mother. 
Monophysitism certainly means no harm. It appeals to our generous desire to include everyone equally by stripping Jesus of his historical moment and his ethnic identity (a Jew). No one can boast he is one of us and not of you. As for instance: he is male, not female; he is straight, not gay; or he is caucasian, not negroid. He becomes the ideal man -- or human -- rather than the historical person of flesh and blood who was born of Mary.
Monophysitism slides into a "spiritual religion" which dismisses the demands and obligations of religion, especially as a religion struggles to transcend cultural and linguistic boundaries. You don't have to know Hebrew or Greek to read the Bible; or even that the Bible was not written in King James' English. Any translation is good enough. You don't have to know the Bible's historical origins or how Christianity developed since the first century. Monophysitism makes no demands for everyone can meet Jesus where they are, without going to him where he is. That is, in an organized, disciplined congregation with religious traditions. 

As Monophysitism descends into SBNR ("Spiritual But Not Religious") it shows its  transparent disguise -- atheism. It cannot know God because its god requires no sacrifice. There is no need to go to him outside the camp

The Church Fathers would have none of that as they insistently "acknowledged Jesus Christ come in the flesh." If he is not human, he cannot save us. 

Saint John Henry (Cardinal) Newman saw how nineteenth century English citizens dismissed the demands of religion as their congregations splintered into high and low Anglican, and then innumerable evangelical sects. Everyone became his own priest, prophet, and king. There was neither authority nor obedience to authority. Their unity was based on their patriotic loyalty to the English monarch, not to Christ.

Becoming Catholic, the saint would feel the bite of obedience within the Church. He could not be a cafeteria Catholic, choosing to believe what he liked and dismissing the rest. To practice his faith, he joined the "Congregation of the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri" and was subject to the claustrophobic demands and expectations of companions, even as he enjoyed their friendship and prayerful support. 

Individualistic Americans must also hear the invitation to enter the communion of the saints as they are gathered by a man who was born of a woman in first century Palestine. It is not easy to be Catholic; it never was; and never should be. If your religion comes from God, it will often demand more than your willing to give -- because that's what real human beings do for one another. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

I love to write. This blog helps me to meditate on the Word of God, and I hope to make some contribution to our contemplations of God's Mighty Works.

Ordinarily, I write these reflections two or three weeks in advance of their publication. I do not intend to comment on current events.

I understand many people prefer gender-neutral references to "God." I don't disagree with them but find that language impersonal, unappealing and tasteless. When I refer to "God" I think of the One whom Jesus called "Abba" and "Father", and I would not attempt to improve on Jesus' language.

You're welcome to add a thought or raise a question.