Development versus Alteration: The crucial distinction
Last Friday’s Office of Readings dealt with development versus alteration: the crucial distinction. Fifth-century monk, Saint Vincent of Lerins, writes enthusiastically of the development of doctrine.
Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.
Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.
The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.
The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were.
From the first instruction by Saint Vincent of Lerins, priest
The crucial distinction between the two terms is deceptively simple. The temptation to just gloss over words without considering their complete meaning always lurks in the background. But that phrase seemed to shimmer in my memory and so I kept returning to the meditation written in the fifth century.
“Development means that each thing expands to be itself.
While alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing to another.”
Ours is an age of alteration.
The changing of one thing to another exists everywhere we turn: our food, language, bodies and all of nature. The following lists only a miniscule portion of the things we’ve changed from ‘one thing to another.’
- Cardiologist William Davis unleashed an epidemic of controversy when he published his book, Wheat Belly in 2011. In opposition to the mantra of “healthy grains,” Davis declared a single slice of wheat toast is ten times more addictive than a Mars chocolate bar. The radical rise of American obesity is, at least in part, fueled by dwarf wheat introduced because of its resistance to insects and smaller size. Davis calls the genetically modified wheat, “Frankenwheat.”
- Monsanto’s experimentation with genetically modified seeds, soil and insecticides are well-known.
- The tobacco industry’s application of knowledge gained from enhancing the addictive elements of cigarettes to the food industry is becoming better known.
- When we decide an evil thing is desirable, we alter the intinsic evil by changing the name. Thus turning our backs on the integrity of words.
- Or by seeking the state’s endorsement. Think of the stunning “progress” of abortion as “safe but rare” under the Clinton administration to a 2024 Democratic presidential candidate claiming that abortion up though birth and faith are congruent.
- Saint Vincent’s caution presages the horrors of transgender ‘medcine.’ “ff, however, the human form were to turn into some shape that did not belong to its own nature, or even if something were added to the sum of its members or subtracted from it, the whole body would necessarily perish or become grotesque or at least be enfeebled….”
Deeply invested in blindness
The phrase isn’t mine. But rather one of Bishop Robert Barron’s and aptly explains our culture of lies, deception and death. Remember the Gospel passage about the man who was blind from birth whom Jesus heals? It’s a long, detailed and unnerving Gospel passage that can be reread in its entirety here.
The passage is unnerving, because no one delights in the fact that the man can now see! On the contrary, people are incredulous, angry and fearful. The interrogation of the man’s parents by the religious officials would be comical, if weren’t so— awful.
Barron’s riveting explanation warrants our reflection, for this tale is timeless. And it speaks to each one of us. The blind man is not only restored to physical sight, but spiritual. When “His being is rubbed into our sin-sick eyes, we begin properly to see.” In reply to all the skeptics claiming that you cannot be the same guy, the man’s answer is translated as “Yeah, it’s me.” But Bishop Barron declares the blind man’s reply echoes Christ to Moses: Ego Eimi: I AM.
There are a lot of people in this sinful world deeply invested in blindness…That means their whole world, their way of making money, their whole political order, whatever it is, is predicated on the fact that most people are not spiritually awake. Most people are spiritually blind. And so they don’t want someone who has been liberated…They don’t want someone who sees…So I say to everyone who is on the spiritual journey who can say Ego Eimi, stay wide awake, be careful, for the devil is prowling, looking for someone to devour. You will be opposed,
Trust me.
We know well the opposition, don’t we? We can see the rolled eyes, smirks and hear the sarcastic reply when we counter lies with the Gospel. And if we decide to join 40 Days for Life on the sidewalks of the abortion clinics [Planned Parenthood], we can’t help but wonder, “Will I be arrested?”
But yet when we keep our thoughts to ourselves because we fear being disliked or ridiculed, we can hear the internal admonition. “Your silence is assent.”
Our Mission
In these oh so strange and disturbing days, even those of us for whom our faith is a private thing, understand that souls are at stake. Hence we must look for ways to Speak Out!
But not just in words, with our actions:
- Praying with newfound fervor
- Fasting not just from food but criticism and judgement, especially for those deeply invested in blindness.
- Supremely confident in the power and mercy of Jesus.
- Demonstrating “combative hope” in each area of our life.
Because hope discerns between good and evil, it is called to do combat. Yet it fights without anxiety or illusion, with the assurance of one who knows that he pursues a sure goal…
Do We Know How to Pray?
