Take the Long Way Home

I’ve heard more than once that the Catholic Church is all “pomp and circumstance”. What does this mean to those who say it, and are they correct?

First of all, what is “pomp and circumstance”? Well, technically it’s a piece of music, the music that is played at graduations while the graduates walk down the aisle in order to be recognized for their achievements. Since this music is played at pretty much every graduation in the country, people must not have that much against it. So I went to the dictionary.

Pomp, according to Webster, is a stately or brilliant display; splendor; magnificence. But also can be an ostentatious show or display.

Circumstance means several different things, the definition that most seem to fit was one of the last given; it was ceremony or show.

So, I guess what people are trying to say is that the Catholic Church is putting on a show, an ostentatious show. Lots of glitz and glamour without any substance. Where do they get this idea? I keep looking back at Webster’s first definition of pomp, and I can’t help but think, “doesn’t God deserve a stately display? Splendor? Magnificence?”

Where do folks get the idea that God wants simplicity? That God doesn’t want ceremony and beauty in worship?

When the President of the United States walks into a room, everyone stands. Why? Standing is a common form of respect. When we remain seated while the President enters we are making a statement. We are saying that we do not respect this man or his position and we refuse to show him respect. In other words, we disrespect him.

When the Queen of England walks into a room there is quite a bit of ceremony involved. Standing, saluting, kneeling, and all to music playing. Anyone who refuses to follow tradition here will be thrown out on their ear!

As a general rule, we have no problem giving head’s of state their due. Why do we think God deserves less? Shouldn’t He get more pageantry than some Queen or President? In the Old Testament, God was pretty specific about worship. Where is should be held, who should preside, what they should wear, what the surroundings should look like. So what did God prescribe for himself?

Exodus 31:1-11

The Lord said to Moses, “See, I have chosen Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled h im with a divine spirit of skill and understanding and knowledge in every craft in the production of embroidery, in making things of gold, silver or bronze, in cutting and mounting precious stones, in carving wood, and in every other craft. As his assistant I have appointed Oholiab, son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. I have also endowed all the experts with the necessary skill to make all the things I have ordered you to make: the meeting tent, the ark of the commandments with the propitiatory on top of it, all the furnishings of the tent, the table with its appurtenances, the pure gold lamp stand with all its appurtenances, the altar of incense, the altar of holocausts with all its appurtenances, the laver with its base, the service cloths, the sacred vestments for Aaron the priest, the vestments for his sons in their ministry, the anointing oil, and the fragrant incense for the sanctuary. “

Exodus 36:8-19

The tent coverings were made of fine linen twisted, having cherubim embroidered on them with violet, purple and scarlet yarn… Then fifty clasps of gold were made, with which the sheets were joined so that the dwelling formed one whole… Fifty bronze clasps were made (to join the sheets of goat hair)… A covering for the tent was made out of ram’s skins dyed red…”

I know this is a lot of quoting, but I hope I’m making my point. Exodus continues with the description of the Ark: made of acacia wood, inside and outside were coated with gold. The propitiatory was made of pure gold. Two cherubim, made of beaten gold, covered the propitiatory.

The Table was made of acacia wood, plated with pure gold. The vessels to go on the table were also to be fashioned out of pure gold.

The Lampstand was to be made of beaten pure gold.

Altars were made of bronze.

And all of this was while the Israelites were wandering around in the desert! God said, “get me the very best artisans and materials that can be offered, and worship me with those.”

When Solomon built the Temple, he built it out of stone. The inside was lined with cedar that was carved in the form of gourds and open flowers. The interior of the temple was pure gold. The altar was pure gold, in fact the entire temple was coated in pure gold. In the sanctuary were two cherubim made of olive wood and overlaid with gold. The walls on all sides of both the inner and outer rooms had carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. Everything overlaid with gold. (1 Kings chap 6, chap 7 goes on to describe the Temple furnishings)

Now lets move on to the New Testament. In Revelation, John has a vision of the throne room of heaven, in this throne room there is an altar, golden incense bowls, and creatures who fall to the ground before God and sing his praises. John’s vision also includes a glimpse of the “new heaven and new earth”. The New Jerusalem is described as having foundations decorated with every precious stone, gates made of pearls, streets made of gold.

Okay, so obviously God likes the ornate, the beautiful, the rare, and He likes it to be fashioned by experts, by those who can give the material its due. What about ceremony? Do we have any picture of God being casual? Of God not caring how He is approached? Of God saying, “worship me old way you want”? We are told to worship Him in spirit and truth, but does that mean the material is no longer important? Then what is God doing mentioning it again in Revelation?! Does spirit and truth equal the fundamentalist understanding of simplicity?

In the OT, God again was very specific about ceremony. So specific, and so serious, that when the prescribed rituals were not followed death came to those who profaned God by not following his ordinances (see Leviticus 10). Everything was ordered in the minutest detail. Why would this God, who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, suddenly change His preference for worship? And then change it back again in the end (with Rev)? If the worship that God prescribed for Israel was to be completely thrown out with Jesus, then why did the Apostles continue to meet in the Temple on the Sabbath? Even after Sunday, the Lord’s Day, became the meeting day of Christians? Why are things in heaven (at least according to the glimpses we’ve been given in Isaiah and Revelation) so formal? Why do much bowing and singing? Why are there altars in heaven? How does the fundamentalist explain these things?

When they want to argue that the “early church” met in people’s houses, I will agree. In fact you can tour some of these homes if you visit Rome. But inside you will find altars (like the ones in heaven), you will find evidence of ceremony. They had no buildings or fancy accouterments while the Roman government was persecuting them purely for being Christians! They also met in the catacombs to avoid this persecution. But how does this speak to ceremony? Do you really think that the Apostles, who were steeped in the symbolism of Judaism, didn’t see the parallels between what they were used to and the new revelation they were given from Christ? Where is the idea that the Apostles led worship in homes and later in cemeteries with no ordinances, no ceremony? And you will also notice, if you read Eusebius, that as soon as the persecutions died down (not completely, but by around 200 AD) you find Christians worshiping in buildings. Buildings that were dedicated to the worship of God (this was why they were destroyed by the Roman Emperors who liked to persecute Christians).

Is the Catholic Church full of “pomp and circumstance”? I certainly hope so. God deserves whatever finery we can come up with. God deserves much more pomp than we give to mere Heads of State. I want to worship Him in the way that most closely matches what He reveals in Scripture to like. Why should our churches not resemble the New Jerusalem?

There were many obstacles to my reconcilliation with the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church.  One was that very claim!  Most were the usual suspects:  Mary and the Saints, the Catholic view of justification, apostolic succession, etc.  But all of those obstacles could pretty easily be defeated with a little study.  The doctrinal differences between Catholicism and my own personal preference in protestantism were resolved by intellectual means.  I looked at a problem, looked at what this side had to say, looked at what that side had to say and essentially chose the side that made the most sense logically.  Which side has Scripture and history on their side?  Which covers the most angles, etc.  But there was one obstacle that didn’t fit this pattern.  It’s the obstacle I still fight against most… miracles.

Yes, miracles.  You see, I’m a fairly rational person (hormonal and personal issues aside).  I like facts and figures, statistics, things I can prove.  Roman emperors seeing visions in the sky I have a problem with.  Little children seeing Our Blessed Lady on a country hillside I don’t know how to handle.  Young girls digging up buried swords behind altars I scoff at.  And then we get into bilocation?  statues that cry?  hosts that bleed?

How am I supposed to reconcile these kinds of claims with my rational, logical faith? 

The truly ironic thing is I have no problem believing in the crazy miraculous claims in Scripture.  I believe that Elisha looked up and saw an entire army of angels ready to defend Isreal against her enemies.  I believe that Moses held out his rod and the Red Sea parted.  I believe that Joseph actually interpreted dreams.  I believe that Jacob wrestled with an angel.  I believe that Zechariah spoke with an angel who struck him dumb.  I believe that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and gave birth to Jesus, who was 100% man and 100% God!  I believe that the apostles went around healing people…

The difference, I think, is that I have always been taught that Scripture is true.  From the time I was little I was told those miracles and I was encouraged to believe them.  I was even taught to base my faith on them (as proof of God’s power and faithfulness).  But the others, well, the others were “Catholic” stories.  Made up by people who were trying to control others weaker than themselves.  There was no “proof” for these stories, so they were tossed aside (it was somehow okay that the Bible stories have no “proof” to back them up). 

Reguardless of the “why”, this was my major obstacle.  These “Catholic” stories of the miraculous.

On recommendation, I read the book Padre Pio: Man of Hope.  This one little book began to crumble my defenses.  It began to make me question my critical stance against “miracles”.  Why?  Because I discovered that the Catholic Church loved reason and logic as much as I did.  Because I discovered that they like “proof” too. 

Can they “prove” that Constantine actually saw a cross in the sky and that influenced him?  Of course not.  Can they prove that Joan of Arc “knew” where the sword was buried?  Of course not.  But they put any and all claims to the test.  The strictest tests that are possible.  (these days there are not much more than medical miracles that can be “proven” objectively and the RCC goes to great lengths to make sure that everything is documented (both from before and after the “miracle”) properly and that several doctors examine the evidence.  The most impressive fact was that they don’t rely on Catholic doctors, but try to find atheists and agnostic doctors who people can’t accuse of being biased.)  Can all things be proven?  Of course not, BUT, they don’t ask me to blindly believe.  In fact, I don’t have to believe any of those “miracles” (I do have to believe the ones recorded in Scripture, but beyond that the Church only states that certain miracles are “official”, which only means that they have been studied carefully and that they don’t contradict the faith.)  

Above all, the Church has convinced me that she is not gullible, that she doesn’t check her brain at the door.  This was most comforting to find out.

I have a new friend with whom I went to dinner last night.  In talking about where we came from, etc, my new friend mentioned that she and her husband used to be Catholic, but they didn’t like all the “man made rules”.  She already knew I was Catholic, so I’m not sure how she meant for this to go over.  I made no comment and just let her go on, she talked about how the only thing that was important was that one had “accepted Jesus into their hearts” and “lived a good life” and “does it really matter if one goes to church”, “but I know the Catholic Church is different” she says to me, sort of apologetically, like she doesn’t want to offend me.  Too late… I’m offended.  But not really by my new friend, she only repeated (in exact words) what I’ve heard often enough before. 

Is the Catholic Church full of man made rules?  If so what does this mean exactly?  How is this different from the non denominational church that my friend attends?  Do they not espouse any rules?  Do they agree that it doesn’t matter if one doesn’t go to church, one must just live a good life and have Jesus in their hearts?  And what does that mean, to ask Jesus in your heart?  Where did this idea come from?  I’ve never seen it in the Bible, does that make it a man made rule? 

What exactly is wrong with “man made” rules?  We have no problem following the rules of our country and state.  Those were made by men.  Why do we follow those, but feel we can throw off those made by the church?  You want my opinion?  Of course you do, you’re on my blog afterall!  Authority.  That’s it, it all comes down to authority.  We gladly follow the rules of someone we accept has the authority to make those rules.  We agree that the Senate and House have the authority to make laws, we agree that the courts have the authority to enforce those laws.  We don’t argue with the cop who pulls us over for speeding that he doesn’t have the authority to give us a ticket.  Why?  Who gave these men this kind of power, and why do we allow it?  The truth is that men gave men the power to make and enforce rules on other men.  So why is it that when God gives men the authority to make rules, we balk? 

1 Samuel 15:22 says “obedience is better than sacrifice”.  Obedience to what?  God set up rules for Isreal.  He himself gave them an outline, a blueprint.  He gave it to Moses and left it up to him and the leaders who came after him to hash out the details.  When Moses first came down off the mountain, after receiving the law, he wore himself out listening to the people and acting as judge (*he* acted as judge over the people, not God directly), so his father in law suggests that he appoint other men to help him with this task (this task of interpreting the law and deciding how it should be played out in other people’s lives).  If God had laid out everything so plainly then why did the people need Moses and his delegates?  These “men” decided just what it was that God meant when they hammered out the laws of Isreal.  And they continued to do this over the next several centuries.  (read through the OT, you will see many examples of “rules” given by Kings and such that are not mentioned in Leviticus, but you will see no rebuke from God over this).  If “man made” rules were such a bad thing, then why did Jesus not forbid it?  Why did he not condemn the Jewish practice of “man made rules”?  In fact, not only does he not condemn it, he tells his disciples to obey these rules (these rules that are not found directly in the Bible, but have been developed by the Rabbi’s).  Why?  Because the “men” involved were given the authority by God.

Matthew 23:1-     “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:  The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat.  So you must obey them and do everything they tell you.  But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

Is Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for making “man made” rules?  No, for not following their own rules!  Jesus says that his followers must obey the leaders of Isreal.  Why?  Because they have authority over them.  Where did they get this authority?  From God himself.

But, says the evangelical, when Jesus died all that changed.  We aren’t supposed to follow the Old Testament laws and Jewish leaders!  Agreed.  We, as non Jews and Christians, don’t obey those who sit in the seat of Moses.  But were we left to ourselves?  Did they apostles preach that there were no more rules, no more obedience?  What does Scripture tell us?

1 John 2:3-6  We know that we have come to know him (Jesus) if we obey his commands.  The man who says, “I know him”, but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.  But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him:  Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

Jesus gave his disciples an outline, a blueprint, just like God did for Moses.  And he was pretty specific about who was supposed to be in charge of hammering out the details:

Matthew 16:18,19  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.  I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

1 Timothy 3:14,15  Although I (Paul) hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 

Ephesians 3:10  His (God’s) intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms…

Jesus founded a church (founded on Peter, and described as the “pillar and foundation of truth”, and the vehicle by which the wisdom of God was to be made known) and gave it’s leaders the same authority that the leaders of Isreal had been given. 

In Acts, chapter 15, a controversy arose in the new church.  Should gentile believers be circumcised and be held accountable to Jewish law (not be allowed to eat meat sacrificed to idols)?  Some apostles were preaching, yes, they must be circumcised and, yes, they must abstain from meat sacrificed to idols.  Some apostles were preaching, no, they didn’t need to be circumcised and, no, they could eat any meat they wanted.  So how was this resolved?  Did each apostle start his own church with his own rules?  Did they say, It doesn’t matter, just ask Jesus into your heart and live a good life?  Sorry, they got together, talked it out, and came to a decision that they announced was binding on all Christians everywhere.  How dare they?  They were men, making rules!  Man made rules! And yet most of the same people who protest ”man made” rules the loudest, also claim that everything we need to know can be found in the Bible.  Hmmm, well, I find men making rules in my Bible.  What do you think of that?   

Who is the Pope?  He is a really big deal to Catholics and non Catholics alike.  When I told a protestant friend that I was converting she said, “so you’re gonna do whatever the Pope tells you now, huh?”  Huh? is right!  Popular consensus seems to be that Catholics believe the Pope to be “infallible”, in other words, that everything he says or does is not to be questioned.  It’s written in the history books as doctrine to be set in stone.  One of my friends major concerns was how I was going to reconcile the history of persecution of Protestants, Muslims, and Jews with this doctine of “infalliblity”.  Huh?  Well, if the Pope set these things in motion, told his people to go out and kill people, or didn’t condemn their actions in some tangible way then don’t you have to believe that God wanted these things done?  Huh?  If the Pope is infallible and he said to kill people how do you square that with Scripture?  Huh?  She and I must have a different understanding of Papal infallibility.

What Papal infallibility is NOT:  basically the man who occupies the office of Pope is himself NOT infallible.  He is a sinner, just like me.  He makes mistakes, just like me.  He can even believe in heresy (some of the Popes did you know!), which is unfortunate, but still more than possible.  It doesn’t mean that he can change the rules, submit his own understanding and enforce it upon others.  It doesn’t mean that Popes won’t disagree with other Popes, or even contradict each other.  Popes are human beings with human opinions.   

According to Vatican II the Pope is “infallible” when, and only when, “he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals…”.  What in the heck does that mean?  Basically, my understanding is that EVERYBODY knows when the Pope is making an “infalible” statement- nobody has to infer or study to figure out, was this statement infallible?  It’s a big deal, a huge announcement; it’s making a commonly held belief or doctrine “irreversible”.  In Acts 15 the Apostles did this when they decided that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised.  The Pope and all the bishops did this at Nicea when they declared that God exists in three persons, the Trinity.  The Pope, by himself, has done this twice.  Yes, I said twice.  A whopping two times in the last two thousand years.  Granted both times he proclaimed disctinctively Catholic doctrines to be “infallible/irreversible”, but why do Protestants go so crazy over a doctrine that is rarely used?  Misunderstanding, for one, different understanding of “the church” and her role today and in history for another.

So to answer my friend… How do I reconcile persecution initiated by the Catholic Church with the doctrine of Papal infallibility?  Easy - dirty rotten sinners make dirty rotten decisions.  No Pope ever declared persecution of any peoples to be a part of the Deposit of Faith given by Jesus to the Apostles.