GetReligion, which tracks the coverage of religion in the media, reports on a case in which reporter Ann Rodgers had to explain the 1054 split in one sentence. Here is how Rodgers does it:

Orthodoxy developed in Eastern Europe and Asia when Christianity split into Orthodoxy and Catholicism in 1054, primarily due to conflict over papal authority.

Personally, I don’t think this is too bad. She doesn’t say that either Orthodoxy or Catholicism “started” in 1054, just that Orthodoxy “developed” after the split. The phrase “Christianity split into Orthodoxy and Catholicism” is problematic, but can be interpreted in a favorable light if one sees those terms as simply representing “Eastern” and “Western” Christianity. Here is how Rodgers explains her sentence:

It was something worked out on the fly when an editor asked for a very, very short explanation of Orthodox history. What I was trying to do was avoid saying that Orthodoxy split from Catholicism or vice versa. If you’re going to say that Orthodoxy dates to the first century you’re correct, but it was developing jointly with what became Catholicism. In 1054 they began to officially develop separately.

I think that is a fair attempt in such a short amount of space. Of course, the historical reality is that Eastern and Western Christianity began to develop separately long before 1054, and the events of that year were but a blip on the radar in relation to the history of the schism. But how do you condense such a complex subject into one sentence?

Update: In the comments Brother Charles comes up with what I think is a very good one sentence description:

“In 1054 the Body of Christ was broken and henceforth all Christians have Jesus’ own dying wish for unity on their conscience. (John 17:21)”

A common dispute between Protestants and Catholics is the use of Tradition as an authoritative means of passing divine revelation. Most Protestants of course only accept the Bible as an authoritative source, but Catholics recognize both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as means by which God has revealed Himself and His salvific plan. However, I have found in many of my own discussions with non-Catholics (and sometimes Catholics) that many do not understand what exactly Tradition is.

For a long time, even after I became Catholic, I saw Tradition as solely consisting of the writings of Councils, encyclicals, and the saints (especially the early Church Fathers). And I think most Protestants see it like that as well. However, that transfers a flaw in Reformation thinking, one that sees the written word as the only assured way of transmitting knowledge. This is a flaw conceived in the age of the printing press, and one that Jesus clearly didn’t share, as he didn’t write anything nor command anyone to write anything.

Tradition includes, of course, those writings, but it is primarily the life of the Church, which is the womb of those writings (including the writings of Scripture). This life consists of Catholics believing, preaching and worshiping, and in a special way it includes the liturgy, which is the life of the Church at its most fundamental level. The liturgy is the action in which we are united to our Trinitarian God and it is a primary means in which our Faith is transmitted from age to age.

We can see an example of this in the Arian debates of the 4th century. Arius and his followers were claiming that Jesus was an exalted creation – the first-born of God, but created, nonetheless. Up to this time, there were no councils to look it, no papal encyclicals, and the writings of theologians and even saints were somewhat conflicted and unclear as well. And Scripture alone did not solve the problem – some passages made Jesus appear to be equal to God, and some on the surface did not. The Arians themselves were very Scriptural in their arguments and loved to quote the Bible in their defense. However, the orthodox had a “trump card”, so to speak: they reminded everyone that in the liturgy, they had worshiped Jesus for the past 300 years. And everyone was in agreement that only God was to be worshiped. Therefore Jesus must be God. Thus, the life of the Church, as experienced in the liturgy, is what transmitted this fundamental truth about our Savior for 300 years before it was formalized in the Council decrees. Without Tradition, we would still be debating the divinity of Christ. (This also shows that the Council of Nicea did not “invent” the divinity of Christ – as a certain bestselling author would assert – but merely affirmed what was already practiced and believed by the Church.)

For those interested in seeing how the life of the Church transmitted Christian beliefs from generation to generation before the written word became primary in the 15th century, I would recommend Jaroslav Pelikan’s 5-volume The Christian Tradition series.

I can’t believe I’ve taken so long to blog about this story – it involves St. Francis (my favorite saint), Pope Benedict (my favorite pope), and Jesus Christ (my favorite incarnate God).

The Franciscans recently celebrated the 800th anniversary of the founding of their order, and Pope Benedict reminded them of the process in which Francis renewed the Church – he first renewed himself, then his order, then the Church:

“Like St. Francis, always begin with yourselves. If you prove capable of renewing yourselves in the spirit of the Gospel, you will continue to help the pastors of the Church to make her face, as the bride of Christ, ever more beautiful.”

What I have always loved about St. Francis is his intense desire to be molded into the likeness of Christ. As Pope Benedict said, “the ‘Poverello’ became a living Gospel, capable of attracting men and women of all times to Christ, especially the young who prefer radical commitment to half measures.” This is what attracts people to Christ: not halfhearted, fearful and watered-down explanations, but the bold living and preaching of the Gospel. This is why I love the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal so much – they preach the Gospel with every part of their lives, from how they live in brotherhood to how they care for the poor to how they preach the truth of Christianity, even when the world rejects it.

If we want to renew the Church, we must first renew ourselves.

St. Francis, pray for us!

Speaking of evangelization, there is a good article by Greg Laurie (a well-know Evangelical pastor) about the pressing need for evangelization.

Why on earth does God choose to use people to reach people? If I were God, I wouldn’t use people. I would just do the job myself.

If I were God, I would roll the heavens away, poke my face through and say, “Hello, humanity. I am God. Believe in me now, or I will kill you.” Aren’t you glad that I am not God? At the very least, if I were God, I would raise up an army of mighty angels to preach the Gospel. Wouldn’t that be powerful? I would never use people; they are flawed. They make mistakes. They fall short. They are inconsistent. Sometimes they contradict what they say by the way they live.

But God, in His great wisdom, has chosen to use people to reach people.

We have to remember this every day – God is most likely not going to miraculously convert your brother or your co-worker or your neighbor. He will do it only through the actions of His followers, which means you and me.

In order to be effective in sharing our faith, we need a burden for those who do not know the Lord.

In last Saturday’s first reading, Peter stated, “Whether it is right in the sight of God for us to obey you rather than God, you be the judges. It is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20). Because they had seen the Risen Lord it was literally impossible for the apostles NOT to tell people about it. What about us? We encounter the Risen Lord at every Mass and every time we receive confession. Do we have a burden to tell others about him? Is it something that bothers us if we don’t do it? If not, we need to pray that the Lord would give us a heart that wants to tell people about the truth and beauty and love that is Jesus Christ.

Do you really care about lost people? We have to care and reach out to these people, even if it means going out of our comfort zone. Even if it means getting extreme.

Like going door-to-door. Like talking to that co-worker who is difficult to deal with. Like inviting a sibling to return to the Church.

The burden is on us – we now have to respond.

Amy Welborn profiles my parish’s evangelization efforts in her ongoing series on Catholic evangelization at her blog – be sure to check it out (and read her other posts on Catholic evangelization – I love hearing what other people are doing in this apostolate).

There is an effort underway to add a “Parental Rights Amendment” to the Constitution. It is spearheaded by Michael Farris, a long-time advocate for homeschooling. As a homeschooling father myself, I am a strong supporter of the rights of parents to raise and educate their children without government interference. But will this amendment help? Here is the text of it:

Section 1 appears to be boilerplate introduction language, whereas Section 3 is clearly directed at recent UN actions regarding the “rights of the child.” Section 2 is the meat of the amendment, but I find the language uninspiring. I understand that they need to have something that gives government authority to intervene in cases of child abuse, but it seems to me that the clause “without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served” could be interpreted in such a way that the government could justify any action. How does this really strengthen the rights of parents?

This highlights that the problem is not so much with the laws, it is with those who interpret and enforce the laws. Even a good law can be twisted to advance an evil agenda. If those who are judges or law enforcers wish to push evil on society, words on paper will not stop them. We need to change not so much the laws as we need to change the hearts and minds of those who interpret and enforce them.

St. Thomas More, pray for us!

If you want a classic example of how something formally considered immoral is gently pushed towards acceptance in society, you need look no further than this article from the British newspaper The Independent. It profiles a doctor who is attempting to clone human beings and portrays him in such a way to actually make him appear heroic and cutting-edge without explicitly condoning his actions. There is no discussion of the morality of the act, just that it is “controversial.” Here are some excerpts, with my comments in red.

Fertility expert: ‘I can clone a human being’

Controversial doctor filmed creating embryos before injecting them into wombs of women wanting cloned babies [Note the term "controversial" - this has become a positive term in our age for exalting rebels and those who go against the establishment]

A controversial fertility doctor claimed yesterday to have cloned 14 human embryos and transferred 11 of them into the wombs of four women who had been prepared to give birth to cloned babies.

The cloning was recorded by an independent documentary film-maker who has testified to The Independent that the cloning had taken place and that the women were genuinely hoping to become pregnant with the first cloned embryos specifically created for the purposes of human reproduction. ["genuinely hoping" - this poor doctor is just trying to help woman who want nothing more than to have a baby - a potentially Frankenstein baby, but we'll deal with that later]

Panayiotis Zavos has broken the ultimate taboo of transferring cloned embryos into the human womb, a procedure that is a criminal offence in Britain and illegal in many other countries.["Ultimate taboo" - he has not broken any eternal law, natural or divine, but just a "taboo." And we all know taboos are just cultural norms which are usually there for no reason, right?] He carried out the work at a secret lab-oratory, probably located in the Middle East where there is no cloning ban. ["secret laboratory" - now he sounds like Batman - fighting the evil of the world from his batcave]…

“There is absolutely no doubt about it, and I may not be the one that does it, but the cloned child is coming. There is absolutely no way that it will not happen,” Dr Zavos said in an interview yesterday with The Independent. [See? It's inevitable, so it must be okay. You can't stop science, you religious zealots!]

“If we intensify our efforts we can have a cloned baby within a year or two, but I don’t know whether we can intensify our efforts to that extent. We’re not really under pressure to deliver a cloned baby to this world. What we are under pressure to do is to deliver a cloned baby that is a healthy one,” he said. [And what happens to the all the clones which are NOT healthy?]

His claims are certain to be denounced by mainstream fertility scientists who in 2004 tried to gag Dr Zavos by imploring the British media not to give him the oxygen of publicity without him providing evidence to back up his statements. ["mainstream fertitility scientists" - note the use of the term "mainstream." These are not necessarily reputable, moral or qualified scientists, they are just the mainstream. And we all know how boring and stiff the mainstream is, don't we?]…

“We are not interested in cloning the Michael Jordans and the Michael Jacksons of this world. The rich and the famous don’t participate in this.” [We want to help the poor! Even though each treatment, according to this article, costs between $45,000 and $75,000]

It took 277 attempts to create Dolly but since then the cloning procedure in animals has been refined and it has now become more efficient, although most experts in the field believe that it is still too dangerous to be allowed as a form of human fertility treatment. Dr Zavos dismissed these fears saying that many of the problems related to animal cloning – such as congenital defects and oversized offspring – have been minimised. ["minimised" - what does that mean? It only happens in perhaps 10% of the babies created?]…

“In the future, when we get serious about executing things correctly, this thing will be very easy to do,” he said. “If we find out that this technique does not work, I don’t intend to step on dead bodies to achieve something because I don’t have that kind of ambition. My ambition is to help people.” [cue super-hero music]…

Q. Why is this such a controversial thing to do?

A. Studies on animal cloning have shown time and time again that it is unsafe. The cloned animals suffer a higher-than-normal risk of severe developmental problems and the pregnancies often end in miscarriage. Mainstream scientists believe cloning is too dangerous to be used on humans. [No mention of the potential immorality of it, just the impracticality of it. Which of course sets up the conclusion that when it is practical to perform, there will be no argument against it and it will no longer be "controversial"]

My friend Jason Negri is now blogging at the Inside Catholic blog. I’m sure he will be a great addition, so be sure to visit it!

This week the first reading at Mass is concerned with the life of the early Christian community. One of the key aspects Luke wishes to highlight is how the first Christian Church handled money:

The community of believers was of one heart and mind,
and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own,
but they had everything in common…
There was no needy person among them,
for those who owned property or houses would sell them,
bring the proceeds of the sale,
and put them at the feet of the Apostles,
and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:32, 34-35)

The first thing I think of when I hear this reading is “detachment.” None of the first Christians considered their personal possessions so important that they could not give them away if another needed them more. Nothing came before the good of your brothers and sisters in Christ. Barnabas even sells what appears to be a sizable property in order to help the poor in the Church (Acts 4:36-37). Can we in the American Church honestly read this passage and not feel condemned?

Of course this passage also has significant political implications. Many, especially after the 19th century, have tried to use it to justify communism and/or socialism. And frankly, there is some support for a communal economical model in this passage. Monasteries and convents have had a long history of living under a communal model in which no one owns any personal property. Yet when this model was tried on a large scale and forced upon a populace, the results were devastating.

Yet I don’t think we can therefore declare that the most prominent 20th century alternative to communism, free-market capitalism, is perfect. I do believe the free-market system has many benefits to a society, but the past few decades have proven that it does not work under an immoral people any more than a communist system works under an immoral government. And when I say it “does not work” I do not mean that the economic model doesn’t accomplish what it is supposed to, but instead I mean that people are directed away from their ultimate goal: holiness. An economic model which simply promotes the accumulation of stuff is clearly not an ideal one.

A benefit to free-market economies is that they accept the reality of the Fall. Everyone is naturally self-centered, and the capitalism recognizes that. However, it also is true that, at least in America, capitalism can evolve to its logical conclusion: consumerism, in which each person’s self-centeredness is not just acknowledged, but encouraged and preyed upon. Capitalism, like all economic models, can only work if the people in the society restrain their lower impulses to some degree and put the good of others ahead of their own good. Like the first Christians did.

Sorry for anyone who tried to visit the blog the past few hours – my hosting company was having some technical problems and the site was down during that time. Fortunately, we are back up now (obviously), for if we had been down for a few more minutes, President Obama was about to declare a state of national emergency.

Two new books are being published this year to eager anticipation.

One is The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code. It will continue the story of Robert Langdon and, if Brown’s previous work is any indication, will include depictions of Jesus Christ with no connection to history, Scripture, scholarship or reality. It might also be the most poorly-written bestseller since, well, The Da Vinci Code (yes, I did read it, and I still wish I could have those 2 hours back).

The other is Who Do You Say That I Am? by your blog host (okay, it’s eagerly anticipated in the Sammons household at least). It will contain Scriptural and historical depictions of Jesus that are consistent with the latest scholarship yet also conform to the teaching of Christ’s Church. And I’m hoping it is at least better written than The Lost Symbol, even if it doesn’t sell quite as many copies.

I have a confession to make: I’m not a fan of Twitter. My complaint comes down primarily to one aspect of it: the 140 character limit they place on posts. I just don’t like the fact that you are forced to limit your posts to such a short amount of text. Should you limit Shakespeare? Would you tell Tolkien to reign in his description of the effects of the Ring? Could Brothers Karamazov be as powerful in a tweet? The entire setup of Twitter discourages reflection, as the goal seems to be to post as immediately as possible. Is it not worthwhile to pause and reflect on an event before letting the world know about it?

And now it is discovered that Twitter makes you evil, and the reason is the shortness of it! I knew it!

Frankly, other than a few people like the Curt Jester, I find that very few are talented enough to be pithy in under 140 characters. Most people will just relate the minutiae of their life in boring detail (but perhaps that is how some would describe this blog…)

With the Easter Octave over, the Gospel readings will now come from the Gospel of John for the rest of the Easter season. The readings start with chapters 3 and 6 of John’s Gospel. Chapter 3 is Christ’s discussion of baptism with Nicodemus, and chapter 6 is the Eucharistic discourse after the multiplication of the loaves.

The Church places these readings here to remind us of our response to the resurrection of Christ. This is not just an event that occurred 2,000 years ago and we recall fondly as an interesting historical occurrence. It is something that we participate in; we too can be transformed by Christ’s death and resurrection. And it is the sacraments that make this participation possible. St. Paul tells us that “we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death…We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life” (Romans 6:3-4).

What a gift are the sacraments! Through them we become intimately united with the saving works of our Lord and thus can become more like him every day.

I was talking to a friend after Mass yesterday and he was telling me that when he drives through neighborhoods he frequently wonders what kind of stories the people inside the houses have. We both surmised that there is often pain and loneliness contained within many walls. I find this confirmed when I go door-to-door evangelizing for my parish. As I mentioned last week, this past Saturday a group from my parish went to a local neighborhood to invite people to visit our church.

Here are just two encounters I had:

- I met an older woman at her mailbox who goes to a local “mega-church.” After talking with her for a bit, I asked her if there was anything we could pray for. She paused, and then started crying. She told me that her husband died this past Palm Sunday. I prayed with her right there on the street and encouraged her to remember the Lord’s resurrection. I ask that you pray for her as well.

- Another woman I met had just moved to the area a few days ago. She told me that she “used to be Catholic,” which she said without any animosity. We ended up talking for quite some time, and she asked me in to pray in her new house. I encouraged her to visit our parish sometime or just to contact us if she had any questions or needs.

Other teams also had encouraging encounters with people who “used to be Catholic” and seemed to be sincerely interested in returning. We are having an “inquiry meeting” tomorrow night at our parish, and I’m praying that some of the people we met this weekend will come.

St. Paul, pray for us!

I’ve just posted my reflection for this Sunday – “Thomas Sunday” – in which I meditate on the reality of the wounded, glorified Lord.