It’s only possible to read the first verse posted in that way if you read it in isolation from the rest of the text of which it forms a part. And, even then, you have to ignore the words in that verse which point to a different reading. Which, as others have pointed out, is not the way Catholics read scripture.
Joey P, I’m sure that there are Catholics who haven’t learned, don’t understand, or have for one reason or other rejected what the Catholic Church teaches about the way in which we are to read and interpret Sacred Scripture.
Perhaps you know some of these folks, and have discussed the Bible with them.
When Catholics interpret and then discuss the Bible in ways contrary to the official Church teaching, that leads to confusion and misunderstandings.
I have to confess I’ve never seen or heard of that ash thing you mentioned. I had to google but then I’m in the UK so I don’t know if it is even a thing here.
As for public prayer. Do what the heck you want as long as it doesn’t inconvenience or obligate anyone else, I mean, surely you are doing it for yourself anyway aren’t you?
This is actually a pretty easy one to answer. The verse fairly obviously means not to be ostentatious about your piety. It’s about not showing off your righteousness before others. The imposition of ashes developed during a very spiritually rich time. Attending mass and observing the religious calendar was nearly universal. Wearing ashes was not particularly pious or ostentatious because everyone did it. It became a day of obligation which means that wearing them is not actually displaying your piety, but simply doing the bare minimum. The issue you bring up is that the 21st century West is a relatively spiritually poor culture, so the bare minimum to us seems ostentatious.
Another way of looking at it would be in context of what we are wealthy in - which is material. In 15th century Spain, most people owned one or perhaps two changes of clothes. For us, we have an abundance, so we would say “changing your clothes every other day is a bare minimum for hygiene and decorum.” They would say it’s an ostentatious display of wealth rubbing it in to others how much you have.
So all this is to say simply that what you regard as an ostentatious display of faith is really only the bare minimum and it’s simply because so few people do the bare minimum that it appears to be bragging in some way.
To a Catholic that’s part of prayer, specially the Eucharist.
The idea is that one should do one’s good works for the good works and not to get recognition; see also the widow’s mite (Luke 21, 1-4; Mark 12, 41-44). How does one visit the incarcerated without anybody realizing? Not possible; even if there weren’t guards, the whole point is for the person you’re visiting to realize that a stranger cares for him. But someone who called the cameras every time they set foot in the prison wouldn’t be doing it for the prisoners, they’d do it because they like watching themselves.
Many of the things you are thinking of as “in public” we think of as “in a group”: we pray in a group and as a group, we take Eucharist in and as a community, we are a Church because we are a group. Some of those things we can also do individually; others, not.
I believe in general the CofE doesn’t bother with it, although I don’t think it’s specifically prohibited. I’ve seen a few people in London with marked foreheads (no, not bindis, ha ha) who presumably belong to other denominations.
See post 5.
No, Ash Wednesday is certainly observed among Anglicans. It is not a day of obligation though. Most likely, the person has never seen ashes for two reasons. The first is that the UK isn’t particularly observant Christian anymore. Less than 2% of the British population attends a CoE church in a given week. The ‘Mosque-Mass’ flip will probably happen this year or next year at the latest when more people will be in a mosque in a given week than in a church. So, the reality is there just aren’t that many people who are practicing Anglican anymore, so not that many who bother with the liturgical calendar.
The second reason is that the CoE tends to celebrate Ash Wednesday in the evening as opposed to Catholics who celebrate it throughout the day. If you’re Anglican, it’s likely that you get your ashes at 7 o’clock in the evening and then immediately go home for the evening and wash them off.
There’s also Matthew 5:16
Note the distinction - I do the good works, but in such a way that I don’t get the glory. That goes to the Father in heaven. IOW the message is not that I am good, but that God is good.
When I received the ashes last night, the leader repeated “Remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return”. That’s the purpose of ashes - to remind us of who we are, and to make the Lenten journey one of turning away from ourselves and towards Jesus.
It is, and is intended to be, reminiscent of the phrase from the Service of Burial - “ashes to ashes, dust to dust, in the sure and certain hope of resurrection to eternal life thru Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Regards,
Shodan
Thank you all for the thoughtful responses. I think my problem is twofold:
- Having been brought up with no religion in my household, I’m unfamiliar with the interpretive reading of the bible. I read something where Jesus Himself says “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen” or “This, then, is how you should pray…” and see an instruction guide. This section seems clearly different than where he says you should cast out your eyes, since that seems much more of an moral lesson rather than a direct instruction. I don’t see how the context changes those clear instructions above, but that’s obviously on me.
- Being in the US, my impression is that the loudest Christians are the most literal, and yet they are the ones pushing for prayers before games, in schools, and other public places, and also seem to wear their religion on their sleeves in the most ostentatious way possible. Since those Christians seem to take a literal read of the bible most seriously, this passage seem to make them into hypocrites.
As for Catholics, I understand that their reading of the bible is, in fact, similar to how Jews read their own bible (from my understanding) – it’s not just the bible, but also all the laws and interpretations that come after that from various authority figures. Catholics have never been literalists, so I suppose no specific bible instructions need apply.
Thanks, though, you’ve given me something to think about. I’ll be honest – I’m not convinced, but can sort-of understand the Christian perspective a little better.
I honestly don’t see how the good works passage is relevant. It seems to say you should be an example to others by doing those works, not by showing something. Others would see you attending to the poor, or what have you, and be inspired to do the same. Wearing ashes is not, to me, any sort of good work.
I think it’s fine if your pastor puts the ashes on your head as a reminder of where you’ve come from and where you’re going, but it seems like your next step, after mulling on the meaning, would be to wash it off and anoint your head with oil, so as not to brag about your holiness or whine about your fasting.
That’s why we have denominations. Puritans(Congregationalists) or Pentecostals would likely agree with your assessment and that’s why they don’t tend to get ashes. Ashes are primarily done in the liturgical high churches which take a more nuanced view of scripture. Evangelicals and fundamentalists don’t tend to get ashes although in recent years you’re seeing more of them do so as they attempt to get back to their roots.
Thanks for the kind words, although I don’t think I did quite all of that. Also, I like to give my explanations mostly in private, and not so as to be seen or praised by others.
I am an atheist and have been since I was a teenager, but I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools about 1/2 of my K-12 grades. I like to keep religion out of the public sphere, but I am not militantly anti-religion and I don’t approach these types of discussions with any agenda in terms of either dis’ing religion or promoting it.
I think that how modern Christians behave and what Jesus said are perfectly consistent, but the OP has the cause and effect backwards. Modern Christians don’t pray ostentatiously in public because of what Jesus said; rather, Jesus said what he did because he knew that it’s human nature to want to pray ostentatiously in public.
As an aside, a couple of churches I passed yesterday (both Methodist, for what it’s worth): One was advertising drive-through ashes, so you could get your smudge on your face without interrupting your busy day. Another had a sign announcing a potluck at 6:00, followed by Ash Wednesday services at 7:00. It seems to me that both miss the mark. Though, to be fair, they probably think the same about my church’s Friday fish fries.
Heh, as a United Methodist, I would say that fasting from food is much admired and rarely practiced. I don’t even recall the last time I heard a minister mention a food fast. When we are told to abstain, it’s generally from negative things, like abstaining from arguing on Facebook or making political points on message boards (I’m not doing that one this year.
)These days the emphasis is on ‘active Lent’ where you do something good rather than abstain from something bad. So, volunteer at a soup kitchen once a week, or visit a nursing home every Saturday, or donate to the local animal shelter, or even call your mom more. This year, our Ash Wednesday service was about the opioid epidemic and what we can do over Lent to help those in recovery, so the conference seems to be pushing that.
As for what we think about Friday fish fries, we find them delicious and we don’t think much more about it (I know that I’ll be at St. Francis our local Catholic church next Friday for mine. ) I think that as a whole, we’ve pretty much abandoned any issues we have with Catholicism at least among the liberal side of the church. It’s more of a ‘You do you and we’ll do us’ attitude. If I were to go to my pastor and say I wanted to do an old-school no-meat fast, he’d say ‘Have at it, I’ll be eating burgers though.’ Although, I will say that as you go southern and rural, United Methodists can become much more conservative, so there are certainly conservative churches still around, though even then, they tend to be more liberal than the evangelical churches in their areas.
Rittersport,
Good questions. And most Christians tend not to try to determine if someone is truly a Christian or just claiming to be one. But as you point out, there are those that make others question with their behavior.
We can never truly know another’s heart. But we can get a generally good impression from their behavior.
In Matthew 7:15-20 it says,
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
The meaning of this is, by in large, if you see someone that professes Christianity and then acts like it, you can have a good idea that they are a Christian.
But of course you also have people that want to push their religion on others and force others to obey (forced obedience is of course not obedience at all). I think this is probably the biggest issue between believers and the “militant” atheist.
Christianity is a personal religion and the church is a family of those believers. We do have different denominations because there are some differing beliefs as to how to go about our worship of God. But largely the Christian denominations use the same Bible.
The way I see prayer in my studies of the Bible is talking to God. So like the example earlier, if you feel comfortable talking about it to your mom, when said to God is prayer. When a kid keeps begging their parents for something, the parents have to make a judgement call. Is it something the child needs? Is it merely a want? Is it potentially harmful for the child? Is it a later, not now kind of thing. Prayer also helps us know what is important to us. If we care about someone dying of cancer, we will talk to God about the person and the situation. Sure God already knows what we need and want, but He allows us to help ourselves deal with issues and to come to Him for requests.
We are not supposed to make a huge deal of it. We are not supposed to put on a big show and make big pronouncements. We are to just talk to God, like we are talking to our parent.
Now, He is the creator of the world, so we are not to be flippant with Him, but he also made us to enjoy humor, so we can be ourselves.
The bible is not a recipe book that has to be followed to a T or the results will not be any good. It is a guide book. A love letter to humans. It is a book that says God the creator of the Universe cared so much about you that He gave His son to die for your sins.
Now, I know that the arguement goes, well God created sin, so if He had not created sin, then He would not have had to prepare a solution for sin.
But my arguement is, for those that have had children, did you go into it believing that they would follow your every command, that they would never stray from where you wanted them to be? Surely you knew they would not live up to your every ideal. But yet, you had them anyway. Sure they tick us off. Sure they get under our skin. But we love them because they are a part of us. And we love them inspite of the fact that they do not do what we desire always. We love them and when they reach an age where they know what love is and tell us they love us, that makes it all worth it.
God really wants the same for us. He wants us to do what is right. He wants us to love others. And He wants us to love Him.
Prayer is considered a good work. It is like fasting - a spiritual good work. Acts of charity and justice are temporal good works.
What Jesus said in the passages you mention isn’t the only thing Jesus said about prayer. Cherry-picking passages is certainly a problem, but it can be a problem from non-Christians as well. Context is important.
Regards,
Shodan
I went to Ash Wednesday services last night. The scripture above was actually the Gospel that was proclaimed. But also realize that Jesus instructed his followers to proclaim the good news to the ends of the earth. How are we supposed to do that without praying and doing good works in public for people to see.
The scripture from Matthew is intended to admonish people who are behaving piously in public in order to be seen and though of as holy and pious. Jesus is telling his flock that there is no reward in store for those who do their praying in public to be seen, or who make big donations in order to be recognized as a benefactor. Instead we should undertake these things in private between ourselves and God, that what we do “for show” doesn’t count, but what’s in our heart that matters.
Remember also that Jesus indicates elsewhere that Heaven is not a tiered reward system, that everyone is rewarded equally with eternal life in the presence of God, so it’s not like praying in private is going to get you a better car to tool around in while you’re in heaven or anything like that.
Most discussions of Christianity, even when they stay serious and away from gratuitous Christianity bashing (this thread’s not bad on that scale) basically assume Christianity=Protestantism. This isn’t entirely unreasonable in US context given that Protestants are more numerous and it’s a basically Protestant culture still (whether non/anti-religious or Catholics or non-Christians like it or not, as often they don’t).
But it does become somewhat self contradictory on the example of wearing ashes in public, which is largely associated with Catholics in US society. Literal v non-literal is not the only distinction. In fact most Protestants weren’t and aren’t more literalist than contemporary Catholics at a given time. The basic original difference which remains to a significant degree (though Catholics have moved closer to the Protestant position over the centuries) is the role of teaching by the Church v interpreting the scriptures for oneself.
IOW you can start a new Protestant sect any time which re-interprets the Gospels, on a reasonably arguable basis perhaps*, as a need to keep your Christianity secret to not be a hypocrite. Catholicism has a large body of teaching which has considered this and basically all the other issues where the Gospels vary or arguably contradict one another and come up with answers. They are the product of smart and learned, though flawed obviously, humans studying all aspects. And they only change slowly over time, typically. And in this case that answer is not that wearing ashes makes you a hypocrite according the Matthew’s Gospel, nor does participating in a public prayer.
You can accept Catholic teaching or not. And of course one can point to cases where even lots of Catholics don’t (in practice) accept parts of Catholic teaching. But that’s the basic system in Catholicism. If troubled by the supposed contradiction between Jesus’ teaching about hypocrisy and wearing ashes, you’d look to how traditional teaching deals with it, and what traditional teaching says would also be part of further debate with other lay people. A debate with lay people just poring over what the Bible says is more the tendency in Protestantism.
*not very reasonable IMO. Perhaps most particularly in Matthew, Jesus inveighed against the hypocrisy He saw in contemporary Jewish society and religious life (as an example of a universal principle, not a criticism of His own society as worse than some other human society). But He did not define hypocrisy as ‘any piety that might become known to others’. The idea that Christianity must stay out of sight to be ‘non hypocritical’ is mainly a modern anti-Christian belief.
“Now, I know that the arguement goes, well God created sin, so if He had not created sin, then He would not have had to prepare a solution for sin.”
At least one Christian denomination would not accept the idea that “God created sin.”
God created free will - in both man and the angels. God’s purpose in doing this was to have a free exchange of love - a union of the wills - between Himself and angels, and between Himself and mankind.
Such love and union is not possible unless both parties are free to choose it, or are free to choose to reject it.
And both angels and men in their turn chose to use their wills to reject the love of God by disobeying Him.
That was the Original sin.
And all subsequent that sin entered the world, was made possible by original sin.
Although God foreknew and foresaw the sins of man, He did not create them.
But because He foresaw sin, He was able to ordain a solution to man’s sin.