I am afraid that I have been having a bit of a disagreement with the worthy Darwin and Mrs Darwin and my Catholic friends. It relates to me comparing FUS with the Amish. And they are correct — traditional Catholics are not Amish.
In the discussion however, I made a comment that related to where the Amish and Mennonites come from. The Anabaptist split occurred about 500 years ago: it was roundly condemned by Lutherans, the Reformed and Catholics, and the remnant of that split live on.
I noted… (after cleaning up my spelling)
I need to dig into a bit of theology here — well stuff I think is heretical, so bear with me.
The Catholic idea of a church is that it is universal. It contains great saints, and great sinners. Not everyone who says Lord… obeys him. We are a motley and fallen crew, as JMB says.
Now this idea is shared between Catholics and Lutherans and Reformed . It is the idea of the parish, that all belong, and the nation-church. Which is why there were heated debates in England as to if the church would be episcopalian or presbyterian. Or the nature of the Lord’s supper. To the point of martyrdom. (on all sides — for every Catholic killed, there was a covenanter).
Now the Anabaptists reject this. They instead choose to be re-baptized (since they reject infant baptism) and they also reject the role of the state, instead setting themselves up as a perfect community of believers only. The more sensible note that they have bought their fallen nature with them… but they try to live righteously, using communal decision making about things like technology.
Now, I’m Presbyterian. Old School. And some of my commentators tell me that I should be in a reformed denomination, without those pesky & embarrassing liberals. But I take “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church” seriously. I go to my local parish. I support the local governance.
So I have great sympathy to where conservative Caths are coming from. For the reformed to not have the magisterium, but the Confessions of the reformed church are about as detailed
Now Mrs Darwin commented quite wisely on this. We ended up talking at cross purposes.
Chris, I think that the discussion is being muddied by the two different levels of “sub-culture” being bandied about. The sense in which Dalrock et. al. talk about orthodox Catholics as being part of a “sub-culture” seems to be in reference to the overall secular culture. I still don’t think that the comparison with the Amish fits: the Amish have some very particular external indications that mark them as part of a clearly defined enclave: no buttons, no mustaches, the little caps for women, the era-specific clothing, no motorized conveyances, etc. That’s not necessarily the case with orthodox Catholics — items of clothing such as head veils are marks of personal devotion, not of adherence to sectarian demands.
There are some other external cultural markers people might use to classify someone, inaccurately, as a particular stripe of Catholic. For instance, I go around with my five children, so someone could could draw the conclusion, “She has a big family; Catholics are known for opposing birth control: she must be one of Those Catholics.” This isn’t necessarily an accurate marker, though: I could be some other stripe of Christian; I could be a natalist; I could be someone whose birth control fails a lot (and those women are legion). The secular assumption that “large family” is an indicator that someone is a member of a sub-culture of orthodox Catholics is off because Catholicism doesn’t call for large families. It calls for people to be generous and prudent in their chosen vocation.
And that’s why Catholics who strive to practice their faith as authentically as possible aren’t comparable to members of a sect (and nor are most people who fall, in some way, outside the bounds of “mainstream” culture). The teachings of the Catholic Church are pretty accessible. You can find them in the Catechism, which is hardly an unobtainable book, or on the Vatican’s website, or from numerous reliable sources. People may differ on how best to live them out faithfully, but as long as particular preferences such as private devotions, forms of dress, personal disciplines, or family practices don’t become more important than the broader teaching of the Church, one doesn’t cut oneself off from the Church or form a new sect. The Church is catholic; there’s broad leeway in how one can faithfully abide by her teachings. It’s “Here Comes Everybody”, and every parish contains multitudes.
A few years ago I spent some time in Pennslyvania, and explored quite a bit of Mennonite theology. I was disatisfied with the direction that the Open Brethren were going — the pastor (who had become a friend) was forced to resign. I had belonged to that group because they were… Open. I have never been a fan of the exclusive groups. The church was reaching out to students: as a result it had meaty teaching — at one point we were literally doing distance teaching for the local bible college (including introductory Koine Greek: one of the strengths of the Brethren is their expectation that almost everyone does some ministry).
So I was considering carefully what the Anabaptists said — I was reading Calvin and reformed theology in parallel. Plus Thomas Merton: as I said, I’m not that exclusive. In the end, we moved back into a Presbyterian church, in which I grew up.
Now, these divisions are of the flesh. We do not know, none of us, God perfectly. I fully believe that we have sufficient knowledge to live in this life. For here we are imprisoned. Here the flesh rules. And with that comes division and fractiousness. But today’s reading corrects that.
41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory.
42So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven.
50What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Let us consider for a second the secular tells that say that we are odd. They include external signs of our faith: wearing a crucifix, signs of devotion (such as covering one’s head): large families: a sense of duty: the development of a conscience. None of these things are compulsory among Catholics or reformed, though some may be recommended. This is unlike the Amish, where one’s very clothing is regulated.
There go my Thinkgeek T-shirts.
The more difficult issue is now to avoid the abuses of cultic life. The signs of the flesh, that will disappear, along with our infirmities, when we are raised in Glory. And our divisions will be one of these. For a besetting sin among the reformed is a continual quest for a more perfect theology, as among the Catholic a casuistic use of canon law.
Cults can survive. They are tight. They throw people out. Provided they are pro natalist, they can sustain their numbers, and even grow. But the exclusivity, the loss of humility around theological issues, and the risk of legalism and the inherent pride that comes from that are significant.
I think God is binding us together, across theological reasons, for a reason. But it is clear that these divisions will be erased in the resurrection to come. For we are raised in glory, not division.
