History is an extremely useful tool in demonstrating the correctness of Catholicism. Of course Catholicism is a Historical religion, with its central dogma revolving around the historic person of Jesus Christ. The actual intervention of the God-head, with the incarnation of the Second Person of the Ever Blessed Trinity. It relies on the fact that this historic person was in fact both God and Man and that He offered a Vicarious Sacrifice for our redemption. This God-Man was then to rise from the Dead, the most glorious of all the miracles and commissioned the Twelve Apostles, Peter as the Rock, founding a Church to carry the Gospel of the New Testament to all mankind. It's books contain historical accounts of this God-Man's life as well the very early days of the Church. The deposit of the Faith was completed at the historic date of the death of the last Apostle John. All of its decrees and councils have a specific historic setting. In general it would be impossible to understand the Catholic Church without knowing at these historical details.It is my conviction that the history of philosophy is an essential discipline in coming to grips with philosophy in general. Likewise if one wishes to have a fuller understanding of Catholicism its general history should be understood. That is not to say that its Sacred Decrees and dogmas must be historicised in order for them to be understood, for they are a unique form of data revealed directly by God, but it is still helpful to know something of the controversies and difficulties which the Church has had to face through the ages. My point is actually that the history of the Church in all matters, those of revelation and of secular influence, are useful for not only understanding, but demonstrating Catholicism correctness.
Let it be said that I am in no way impressed by an atheists or Protestants objection that the Church has harboured sinners; and that some of Her children have abused the positions of power, or done evil things. This does not demonstrate Her correctness or falsity, it only demonstrates that men have a fallen nature. I believe it was Chesterton who was convinced that the presence of Sin in the world was the surest proof of God's existence. I happen to agree, for if God didn't exist there would be no Sin, no evil, no badness, only sheer, blind, existence. However, in this essay I will talk about Louis IX a Saint and a King. He happened to be my first real contact with Catholicism. Prior to my studying him I had no idea about saints, or popes or any of that. I do not believe that an individuals sanctity can be a proof of correctness or falsity either. I once faintly asked a friend of mine if there were any Anglican Saints, to which the reply was 'No, of course not, you have to be Catholic to be Saint'. (Of course at this point neither of us had heard of 'Saint' Charles king and martyr of the Anglican Church, nor its Lambeth Conference)
As for Saint Louis the Ninth I came across him in an essay I wrote entitled, '‘The Epitome of a Christian King’ Do you agree with this verdict on Louis IX (St. Louis) of France?'. Needless to say I did. In fact I wrote a glowing essay on the virtues of this Prince, defending him against all who would dare to spoil his name. It occurred to me that it may in fact have been a certain secular bias that would refuse to see Louis as he was. There is a definite 'black legend' surrounding the Middle Ages; that it is an Age of backwardness or repression. One can see it reflected well if you pick up a standard text on Philosophy. Likely you will see that there were the Socratics up to and including Aristotle and then there was Descartes. What ever happened to Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Scotus, Bonaventure, Peter Lombard, et al? As if nothing happened between 300 BC and 1700 AD except for a few pious people, mumbling prayers.
The principle biography of Louis was written by his friend Lord of Joinville whose credibility is questioned because it is was written as hagiography. At the time I believed that it was a ridiculous accusation to make, not because I felt that hagiography couldn’t be called history, but because Lord Joinville had put many details into the biography that showed Louis to be human; things such as his impatience.
What most impressed me was the voice of his holy mother who said, ‘Never forget that sin is the only great evil in the world. No mother could love her son more than I love you. But I would rather see you lying dead at my feet than know that you had offended God by one mortal sin’. This idea of hating Sin more than loving life was something that set deeply upon my mind. For what could be worse than to be dead spiritually? One’s soul is no longer fully functioning, it possesses nothing, the flesh has no purpose but to harbour empty meaningless matter, extrinsic reality is the only thing left and what a horror that is. Considering also the horror wrought against so Good a God; one does not deprive God of anything, for He remains Infinitely Good, but one looses God, looses Good. There is then nothing left, there is no substance in evil, it is only emptiness. In any case there was this Queen, with all the material advantages that being a monarch would bare, telling her son and the heir to the throne that it would he’d better off dead in the flesh than to ever offend God.
This message of his mother’s left a deep impression of Louis as well, for he was to live a most exemplary life. Devoting to helping the poor, rescuing fallen women, purging usury, arbitrating justly in international disputes and of course going on crusade for the sanctification of his subject princes. There is a brilliant tale of him jumping enthusiastically off the boat upon arrival in Egypt ready to fight and having to be restrained by his followers. He also supported the mendicant orders, extended the inquisition, while restraining it from over zealousness and banned the baring of arms against Christians.
Louis’s advice to his son is inspiring:
You should, with all your strength, shun everything which you believe to be displeasing to Him. And you ought especially to be resolved not to commit mortal sin, no matter what may happen and should permit all your limbs to be hewn off, and suffer every manner of torment, rather than fall knowingly into mortal sin.
[…]
If our Lord send you any prosperity, either health of body or other thing you ought to thank Him humbly for it, and you ought to be careful that you are not the worse for it, either through pride or anything else, for it is a very great sin to fight against our Lord with His gifts.
Dear son, I advise you that you accustom yourself to frequent confession, and that you choose always, as your confessors, men who are upright and sufficiently learned, and who can teach you what you should do and what you should avoid.
Dear son, I advise you that you listen willingly and devoutly the services of Holy Church, and, when you are in church, avoid to frivolity and trifling, and do not look here and there; but pray to God with lips and heart alike, while entertaining sweet thoughts about Him, and especially at the mass, when the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are consecrated, and for a little time before.
[…]
Dear son, I advise you that you try with all your strength to avoid warring against any Christian man, unless he have done you too much ill. And if wrong be done you, try several ways to see if you can find how you can secure your rights, before you make war; and act thus in order to avoid the sins which are committed in warfare.
That a king should be so zealous in the Faith was an eye opener for me. Was Louis IX the epitome of a Christian king? I couldn’t think how anyone could be more fitted to the title. At the time however, it never really occurred to me that this view was controversial, or that I was speaking like a Catholic. One instructive instance is when I said in my essay something to the effect: ‘The Vatican canonized Louis as a Saint, which really suggests that he must have been a Christian king, for how much more Christian can one get than being a Saint?’. Not a very Protestant or modern way of looking at it.
It must be remembered that my knowledge of Catholicism was still very limited at this time. I had learned that it was a separate thing, something distinct from Protestantism and I was beginning to come across all the no-popery cries, none of which I found particularly convincing. I would defend Rome against stupid attacks, but it never occurred to me that I needed to be a Catholic, or that I would become one.
I was also at this time attending an evangelical Bible study group. I have to confess that I was never that impressed by biblical fideism or the manner of interpreting one verse in multitudinous ways. There never seemed to be any reason for belief in the Bible except that it was called a Holy Book. I also found the tactic of playing on peoples fears to be abhorrent. Nevertheless I stuck with this group for a long time, even though unconsciously I was becoming more ‘Roman’ in my outlook; things like ‘How brilliant is St Thomas Aquinas?’ where not uncommon phrases to pass my lips.
So leaving for the Christmas vacation in the first year I was becoming disenchanted with Protestantism, but I was not really thinking about Catholicism. I was quite content in my moderately high Church Anglican establishment and I passed my last Christmas as a non-Catholic happily. I was about to receive a shock however, with the coming term.
To be continued…
It must be remembered that my knowledge of Catholicism was still very limited at this time. I had learned that it was a separate thing, something distinct from Protestantism and I was beginning to come across all the no-popery cries, none of which I found particularly convincing. I would defend Rome against stupid attacks, but it never occurred to me that I needed to be a Catholic, or that I would become one.
I was also at this time attending an evangelical Bible study group. I have to confess that I was never that impressed by biblical fideism or the manner of interpreting one verse in multitudinous ways. There never seemed to be any reason for belief in the Bible except that it was called a Holy Book. I also found the tactic of playing on peoples fears to be abhorrent. Nevertheless I stuck with this group for a long time, even though unconsciously I was becoming more ‘Roman’ in my outlook; things like ‘How brilliant is St Thomas Aquinas?’ where not uncommon phrases to pass my lips.
So leaving for the Christmas vacation in the first year I was becoming disenchanted with Protestantism, but I was not really thinking about Catholicism. I was quite content in my moderately high Church Anglican establishment and I passed my last Christmas as a non-Catholic happily. I was about to receive a shock however, with the coming term.
To be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment