A reader recently forwarded to me the following email he sent to the host of a local Catholic radio talk show, which I post here (with the author's name omitted) to raise the question: How should we view our relationship to Christ? Are we His "buddies" or "slaves" ... or both? What difference does it make how Catholics view their relationship to Christ?Dear Al Kresta:I post this as someone with a personal appreciation both of (1) the spirituality of St. Louis de Montfort (who refers to our "slavery" to Mary and, via Mary, to Christ), as well as (2) the point often stressed by Dr. Scott Hahn that when Jesus teaches us to pray in the New Testament, He introduces "Abba" (an intimate term roughly equivalent to "Daddy") as the form of address for praying to our Heavenly Father.
I greatly appreciate all of your efforts even if I seem willing to pick a fight. As a traditionalist I am marginalized.
On your 9/11 show you rebroadcast an interview with Scott Hahn. Scott characterizes Muslims as having a master-slave relationship. But that is precisely what we Catholics had before Vatican II. I remember the agony of violating even the Friday abstinence. That's how seriously we took obedience. Now there is a new book by Pastor John MacArthur called Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ."Though the word slave (doulos in Greek) appears 124 times in the New Testament and its compound syndoulos (fellow slave) 10 times, it is correctly translated only once in the KJV. According to Kittel the word doulos is used exclusively 'either to describe the status of a slave or an attitude corresponding to that of a slave.' 'The meaning is so unequivocal and self-contained that it is superfluous to give examples.' St. Louis Grignion de Montfort comes to mind as one who asserts the word 'slave' without any hesitation.
Recently you had a show devoted to one of my favorite topics, the social reign of Christ the King. You invited input from your listeners and noted the absence of discussion on the topic. I wanted to shout "Go to Grand Rapids, Al." There the Reformed Protestants really believe in the sovereignty of Christ.
It is of great concern to me that the central mystery of our faith is scarcely known by a majority of Catholics: the atonement. Msgr. Arthur Calkins (Ecclesia Dei) believes it is the cause of the identity crisis in the priesthood. Vide Padre Pio: Priest and Victim (piercedhearts.com).
Scott Hahn has given us a very warm and friendly approach to the faith (God's covenant family), but is it Catholic?
The apostles repeatedly refer to themselves as "slaves" of Jesus Christ, although this is often mistranslated into English as "servants" (Rm. 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1; Jas 1:1). But St. Paul also casts a new light on this slavery when he writes: "For you did not receive a spirit of slavery again to fear, but you received a Spirit of adoption by which we cry, Abba! Father!" (Rm 8:15). Again, Jesus says that "Whoever does the will of My Father is my brother and sister" (Mt 12:49). Yet again, Jesus says: "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you."
This alone does not yet answer the question of how we ought to conceive of our relationship to Christ and what our proper attitude toward our Lord ought to be. Clearly there are a number of facets to this relationship, since our Jesus is not merely our Friend, and Savior and Redeemer, but our Creator, our Lord, our Master, our King and our Judge. It may also be the case that an ethos given to overemphasizing one or the other extreme in its discourse about our relationship to Christ may call for a corrective counter-balancing emphasis on the other side of the equation. Your thoughts?
[Hat tip to A.S.]
13 comments:
St. Josemaria Escriva instructs his followers in Opus Dei to begin each day by prostrating themselves and kissing the floor and declaring: "Serviam!"
I don't know about 'doulos' but 'servus' seems to be broader than our word 'slave'and doesn't seem to demand translation as 'slave' in every case,e.g., 'servus servorum Domini' (servant of the servants of the Lord). 'Serf' comes from 'servus' but 'slave' comes from a different word entirely, 'sklabos' in Greek, which may be 'slave' but in Latin it became 'sclavus' or 'slavus' and referred to the Slavs,who were sometimes sold as 'slaves.'
'Serviam' is a verb and "Let me serve" is far better as translation than "Let me slave."
As to whether we are 'slaves' of Christ or not, the answer probably depends on whether "I live, not I, but Christ lives in me" is the result of love or fear.
Dan,
There are two things to be distinguished here, I think. One is terminological, the other historical. Terminologically these alternative terms in Greek and Latin have variable semantic ranges of meaning. Historically, what we call "slavery" had variable forms of expression from chattel slavery to indentured servitude to hired servants.
Concerning your last distinction (a point well-taken), I would also distinguish between different senses of love and fear. Fear, for example, is not necessarily a negative thing, certainly not in scripture.
"It is of great concern to me that the central mystery of our faith is scarcely known by a majority of Catholics: the atonement."
Let me hear an AMEN! or at least type one in 72 pt Helvetica Bold.
Sheldon,
I realize the terminological problem. "Servus" is the word in the Vulgate and that is authoritative for us. Jerome and the folks who did the KJV apparently thought that equivalency with 'doulos' was achieved with 'servus.' The cultural connotation and denotation of 'doulos' in the classical word was probably, as you point out, not quite what we understand from 'slave' in "Uncle Tom's Cabin."
BTW, the 'doulos-servus' paring came up in today's second reading, Phil 2:6 where Christ is said to have taken on the form of a 'doulos' in Greek or a 'Servus' in Latin. "Slave" seems to be the usual translation here.
In the end, both servants and slaves wait on their lords.
Pax, Dan
Scott Hahn, Scott Hahn, Scott Hahn;
From the setting of the sun to the coming of the dawn.
Scott Hahn, Scott Hahn, Scott Hahn;
Who says the Holy Ghost is sorta like Mom.
When it comes to Scott Hahn, I prefer Cornelius a Lapide, Dom Gueranger, and Monsignor Gaume.
The majority of Catholics are certainly aware that Christ redeemed us and I believe that most are aware that we are reconciled with God through the Paschal mystery. The word 'atonement,' however, is not a topic in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and does not appear at all in any of the Gospels (according to the NRSV Exhaustive Concordance). Indeed, it only appears twice in the New Testament at all (Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 2:17) where it translates the Latin "propitiatio" and "repropitiare". The Catholic "New American Bible" translation doesn't use 'atonement' in either case.
I am not qualified to comment on what you specifically mean by "the atonement" or how it may differ from Catholic doctrine on Redemption but given the linguistic situation, it is hardly surprising that Catholics don't use the term.
The problem may be theological or terminological but it is not an indication that the vast majority of Catholics don't know the central mystery of their faith.
Dan
The Catholic Encyclopedia has a long article on the history of the theology of the atonement which, shows how the idea is open to some questionable lines of thought. In regard to post-Reformational thought it notes:
"It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.
* The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.
* The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins. "
St. Josemaria maintains a healthy balance between "serviam" and filial adoption, similar to the multifaceted view espoused in Dr. Blosser's post. He certainly takes into account all the verses listed while at the same time insisting that we serve the Lord by always striving to do His will as well as insisting on the Kingship of Christ.
Dave
And "Non serviam!" is Lucifer's attitude.
Balance is usually the best approach. But "buddy" just doesn't seem right. I would prefer servant to slave, only because slave seems to have a connotation of lack of free will, whereas servant seems to imply a choice. I suppose you could choose to be a slave.
Abba does not just mean daddy, but is also an honorific, sort of like calling the Pope Papa in Italian.
True, "Abba" may be honorific, but it's also an intimate, diminutive term, as "Daddy" is in English, as any Hebrew-English dictionary will tell you.
The point might be that even if it's honorific, it's not a "formal" form of address, as "O Great Shining Paternal One," would be.
Post a Comment