Put the Mass back in Christmas

You may have seen a sign or heard a person say, "put Christ back in Christmas," because "Jesus is the reason for the season." Well, I am all for those sentiments, but consider putting the Mass back in Christmas by going to worship your Lord in His Holy Mass. After all, when you are at Mass, Christ is "back in Christmas" because he comes to be with you in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.

Have a wonderful Christmas season and may God grant that our faith increase and persevere until our Lord returns again.
(Read More)

Prayer Request

To anyone so inclined:

Please pray for my mother as she is having a stent put in one of her coronary arteries this Tuesday (11/13).

Any time spent with our Lord on my mother's behalf is much appreciated.
(Read More)

Subscribing to comments by e-mail

Blogger has added a quite useful feature - subscribing to comments by e-mail. You can check out a detailed explanation in the help file or read about it in their blog post.

Simply put, you now have the option to receive e-mail notifications whenever new comments are added to a post that you have subscribed to. Just check the box in the comment area next to “Email follow-up comments to fakeuser@fakedomain.com“. They also have included an unsubscribe option at the post or in the e-mails.
(Read More)

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick weighs in

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick has expressed his view that "he would rather work to persuade politicians to consider a pro-life view" then to refuse them Communion. He mentioned this in response to Archbishop Raymond Burke's wonderfully detailed article about denying Communion based on Canon 915.

What I do not understand is why the two things are mutually exclusive. Yes, persuade them that their support or lack of resistance to abortion is wrong. In fact persuade them at every possible point. In the meantime protect the would-be communicant from heaping judgment upon himself and protect our Lord from being profaned. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)
(Read More)

Mark Shea day(s)

Our parish, Saint Brigid, invited the Catholic writer/apologist Mark Shea to speak on a few topics this weekend. Beth and I were privileged to be able to pick him up. He was already in town (if you consider Conyers in town) speaking to some high school students on Friday at the Monastery of the Holy Spirit.

You will be glad to know he is a great guy. I was slightly concerned as things sometimes get heated on his blog (including his responses), but as I continually seem to find people are universally nicer in person than online.

He spoke on three topics. Friday he spoke on Tradition; Saturday he spoke on Scripture and the Eucharist. All three were great presentations. If you have the chance to get him to come to your parish do not hesitate.

Here is Mark Shea (left) and our Director of Religious Education, Deacon Leo Gahafer (right).


(Read More)

Was Deep Thought this deep of a thinker...

(Todd)

(Beth )

(Thanks to Chris Hilliard for the link. Take the test yourself.)
(Read More)

A little smack'll do ya

Greg over at Crowhill wants you to ponder the little punishments...
Slaps, punches and spankings: How small punishments keep life in line
(Read More)

Salvation - A Correspondence

This is the second of a two part post on an e-mail correspondence I had with a Protestant Evangelical. The first part can be found here. Almost three months ago I received an e-mail from a Protestant Evangelical asking me just one question. “What, in your personal opinion, do you understand it takes for a person to go to heaven?” The following is another part of the correspondence that was involved with answering that question. The very beginning of the conversation is the same as in the other post. I apologize for the repetition, but it makes more sense with it included. Where the first part of our correspondence ended in disagreement, this part seemed to clear up a lot of misconceptions that he had about the Catholic teaching on justification and salvation.

I have received permission from the individual to post this. His words will be in red and mine will be in green. WARNING! This post is very long so only continue on if you have a few minutes to continue reading.

I'd love to get your opinion on something. What, in your personal opinion, do you understand it takes for a person to go to heaven?

A simple summary of what the Catholic Church teaches you must do to be saved is: Repent, believe, and be baptized. (Mark 1:15 & Acts 2:38) We repent because we are sinners in need of God’s grace and God sent his only Son, while we were his enemies, to die for us. (Romans 5:8) We believe, because it is through faith in Christ that we receive salvation. (Mark 16:16, John 3:26 & 6:40) We are baptized, because Jesus has told us that we must be born again, of water and of Spirit to enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5, Mark 16:16)

Based upon your answer, I am quite saved…I'm not sure you would agree with that though. So, am I missing something?

I am pretty sure that whether I agree you are saved or not does not matter.

God has made it clear that it is he who judges the hearts of men and it is before him you will stand when your judgment comes, not me. I say that with all sincerity, because people get caught up in playing the 'I am saved and he is not' game. It is a deadly game. We are not God. We (and I can not stress this strongly enough) do not get to tell God who goes to heaven. Not even in regards to ourselves.

God has revealed to man the Way to heaven and that is his Son, Jesus Christ. We can know with a great degree of certainty that we are following this Way. That assurance of heaven is a great gift, but it is not an absolute certainty. We are called to work out our salvation in fear and trembling and to pick up our cross and follow Jesus. There are severe warnings of hell in Scripture to those whose faith does not work in love and for those who commit sins unto death. Only those who persevere until the end will be saved.

That is why Catholics, do not as a general rule, talk about already being saved. It is not because it is theologically wrong, but because it is theologically incomplete. It is not the only way salvation is spoken of in Scripture. Conversion in the Catholic Church is not a one time decision, but a life-long journey. We are called to convert in every moment of every day. We are called to turn over everything to Christ, whatever our station in life. Wherever we are, in whatever we do, it must all be given to our Lord. As you can imagine this is no easy task for us sinners. But thanks be to God for his grace!

To your question, "So, am I missing something?" Yes, I believe so. You currently are not in Christ's divinely instituted Church (his Body). Do I (or your relatives, or anyone else for that matter) get to tell you if you are going to end up eternally denied the Beatific Vision of your Creator because of that? The answer to that is no. That is God's domain. Do I get to share with you the hope that is within me? Yes, and that is my place in God's creation. God is the one who converts hearts by his grace. All praise, honor, and glory to him, for ever and ever!

Thanks for your clear reply. I agree with a majority of what you have shared…

I would agree that there is a progressive nature to salvation although I also agree it is a moment in time. Salvation happens at the moment one repents and believes but we are also waiting for the "completion" of our salvation when Christ returns. By "completion" I simply mean that He will come and gather us to be with Him. If we have repented and believed (demonstrated outwardly by baptism; not salvific in and of itself but the physical response we are to give to testify to the inward response that saves) we are saved completely but we also eagerly wait for His return to restore all things.

Todd, you are not far off in your understanding (that is assuming that semantically we are on the same page) but I fear that you have missed the "extra baggage" that so many pickup from the Catholic church. In a sense, that is good because you don't need it. But the negative is that you defend the Catholic church without the awareness of what the average Catholic understands the church to teach. I witness to others often and have met many Catholics. I can honestly tell you that in the years I have done that I have yet to meet a Catholic (barring yourself) who understood and could articulate for me what it takes to be saved. They either don't have a clue, give a complete works based salvation answer, or give me some of the true gospel with extra works.

I too cannot declare whether you are saved or not. If your understanding is as it seems, you very well may be a brother in Christ. Only you and Jesus can know that. My fear is that I fail to attempt to "make sure" by not engaging you in what and how one is saved.

Let me clear up some misconceptions that you seem to have acquired. Maybe I have not been as clear as you credit me for.

When I answered your original question I gave you a simple summary of what the Catholic Church teaches that is required to go to heaven…Since I am pretty sure what you mean when you say "the true gospel" and I am also pretty sure that what I have said is not what you mean by that I will endeavor to spell it out as simply as I can.

The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, but not by a faith that is alone. Scripture is absolutely clear about this point. It must be a faith that works in love (Galatians 5:6). Faith that is apart from works is dead (James 2:26). You can have all the faith that it is possible for you to have, but without love you are nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2b). Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans talks repeatedly about faith and I am sure in response to the above you might quote some of those verses. However, Saint Paul makes it abundantly clear the first and last times he mentions faith in that letter what he means by it. He speaks of the "obedience of faith" (Romans 1:5 & 16:26). Faith is not just an intellectual assent to truth.

Many who claim the Catholic Church teaches that man is saved by his own works simply do not know what the Church teaches. The Church specifically (and repeatedly) says that this is heresy. She has always condemned the idea that man, apart from God's grace, can do anything supernaturally good.

What she also condemns is the idea that it is only through faith (separated from hope and love) that we are saved. Even the demons believe... (James 2:19b) He gives us faith, hope, and love to accomplish our salvation. The Catholic Church teaches that everything that we need to go to heaven is because of God's grace which has been merited for us by the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are called to respond to that gift in love. Even this response is because of God's grace, because apart from that grace we have nothing to offer.

[In response to your comments on baptism, t]he Catholic Church teaches that baptism is an actual cleansing of your soul. Through baptism the redemption Christ won for mankind is applied to that person and he is reborn in Christ. Not symbolically, but actually.(My Protestant Evangelical friend had more to say about baptism, but we did not continue that part of the conversation so I have not included it here. Maybe we will get back to that another time.)

My works are worthless. Only His will do. Through Calvary He grants me His perfection and He took my imperfection. At Calvary, He declared "It is finished". What is finished? Salvation's plan and Salvation's work. He took care of everything that I might be saved. My works, which I agree will come when their is true faith (or else it is dead), are the FRUIT of the Holy Spirit. An inevitable result of Him converting me.

Just did some reading that prompted me to want to clarify where I believe the difference lies in our understanding of the faith/works issue.

We both agree that faith without works is dead.

I would say the works are an inevitable result of true faith. When the Holy Spirit of God converts the sinner there WILL be change in his/her life and righteous works will follow. If there is no change, no salvation. It is not that I must DO works to complete my salvation. It is the works are an inevitable result of my salvation.

You would say that we must repent, put our faith in Christ, and do righteous works in order to be saved.

I completely agree that it is heretical to say that faith alone (in the sense of intellectual assent) is all that is needed. True faith involves action. I once heard a pastor share (I've not research this myself sense hearing it) that in the original Greek language there is no concept of someone learning without doing. Doing is inherent in the concept of learning. So, for one to truly "learn" (hear, understand, and agree) about the gospel and receive it by faith will produce works.

Your view puts the stress on man. My stress is on God.

Now, I understand that there are camps out there that do believe that faith/belief is all that is needed to be saved and that works/change of life may never happen. I was on staff of a church for ten months that believed this and resigned over it. They taught that you simply had to have a change of mind (intellectual assent) in order to be saved and that you may not change at all. In fact, you may even one day deny the faith but you are still saved even though you are a saved atheist. Heretical.

True faith results in works.

Now, someone could ask why this matters. It matters a great deal. Because if someone trust that their salvation is not in Christ alone but in Christ plus their works, that too is heretical and that individual is not saved. They have an idol that must be removed.

We must repent and put our faith in Christ alone to be saved.

I just wanted to ask a clarifying question on something.

When you say, "When the Holy Spirit of God converts the sinner there WILL be change in his/her life and righteous works will follow. If there is no change, no salvation. It is not that I must DO works to complete my salvation" it is slightly confusing. If at my conversion I am changed and must work or else there is no salvation, how can you turn around and say that you do not have to work to complete your salvation. It looks to me like you are saying works are absolutely required for salvation, but it is not like you have to do them. If you could clarify what you are trying to say here it would be greatly appreciated.

I'll do my best. The first half of your sentence is not what I am saying. There is a very significant difference between works that you "must" do and works that you will "inevitably" do.

When a person is converted they will do righteous works inevitably. It is the fruit of the Holy Spirit (not the fruit of me). The key word is "inevitably". When the Almighty God of all the universe comes to dwell in a repentant sinner, through the Holy Spirit, there WILL BE chang. It is inevitable. Sure, it may happen at a more rapid pace in the life of some than others but change will happen.

If a person professes to have put their faith in Christ and claims to have repented of their sins, and yet there is no change in their life, there is a good bet that they were never converted in the first place. As John says, "The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;" 1 John 2:4 (NASB) Though they claimed to have been converted, the fact that there was not change proves them a liar. The proof is in the pudding as they say

You said,
"It looks to me like you are saying works are absolutely required for salvation, but it is not like you have to do them."

I can understand how it could appear this way but it couldn't be further from the truth. Works are not a necessity for salvation. Works are the fruit and proof of salvation.

Here's the other side of the coin that may help. When I was lost and a sinner, I committed sin not simply because I chose to but because it was my nature. I inevitably committed sin. There really wasn't anything I could do about it. When I come to Christ, I am reborn and given a new nature. I will inevitably began to grow in righteousness by His Holy Spirit's work in me.

I am trying to understand what you are saying, but I do not see much to argue against as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. You seem to be under the impression that when I say “must” it means apart from the grace of God. As far as I and the Catholic Church are concerned, anything I do on my own is straw.

You must agree that there are many, many examples in Scripture of our judgment being according to our works. It is so clear that I am going to assume that you agree with that statement. Where I believe you think we disagree is in the fact that those works are by a person already justified. We do not however, disagree. The clearest way that I can say this is we are saved by grace. Any faith or works that we bring to the table before our justification mean nothing. They are not of God, but of man. God is the one who justifies. God is the one who gives us faith. We can not even believe without God's grace. God is also the one who works in us so that our works can be worthy of reward. If it is not God's grace working in us and coming forth from us fruitfully then it means nothing. We must of course cooperate by believing and working, but even that cooperation is only possible because it is by God's grace. Man brings nothing to God that he needs. We are helpless sinners before him.

Now once a man is justified, he has become a new creation in Christ. He is no longer fallen man, but redeemed man. He is no longer separated from God, but a temple of the Holy Spirit. He is no longer a slave, but a son. He no longer works for a wage which is his due, but receives an inheritance which is a gift.

I hope this is helpful in understanding the Catholic teaching on Justification. Let me know of any disagreements or clarifications.

I agree that we seem to agree in this area. I find that interesting in light of the fact that the reformation was strongly built on the understanding that we are completely saved apart from works. We are saved by grace through faith alone. The works follow our conversion and are evidence of it (as I thoroughly expouded upon earlier). Though there isn't any writing, that I know of, where the Catholic church states that you are saved by faith AND works, it is their own words that imply such.

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9).

When they say it is NOT by faith alone and that we must "co-operate" and that "the movement of his own will" is necessary to complete one's salvation, it implies that there is a "work" I must do. Granted, we must repent and believe but that is not a work (James points out the clear distinction between the two). So, if faith isn't enough then I must do something and now my work is involved. I think we must be careful to define faith appropriately as well. Faith is not intellectual accent. Faith is belief and action tied into one. It is belief that causes change.

So, yes we seem to agree based upon what we've shared. But, that pleasantly surprises me. I would only add that the judgement of our works is simply because they reveal what is in the heart. Are my works the fruit of the Holy Spirit (pointing out I'm saved) or are they the fruit of my own wicked heart (thus, proving I am lost).

I find it interesting that most non-Catholics that I have discussed this with can not seem to do what you so easily did. See that we are not so far apart as far as salvation is concerned. We do use different language, but that comes from being separated for almost 500 years.

Here is where we start to get gritty. You keep speaking of faith and works and denigrating works when it comes to salvation. When a Catholic speaks of good works he is speaking of his faith working in love. In other words God's grace works in him and God sees that work (which his own grace produced) and because he has promised to do so (not because the Christian "earned" it on his own) will reward it.

As far as the Council of Trent is concerned I would love to walk through any questions you have about it. In response to your specific quote, imagine it read as follows and see if you can now agree with it (My comments in parentheses):

"If any one saith, that by faith (remove faith and insert intellectual assent) alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will (which is done by grace); let him be anathema"

There is a lot pasted in the following. You might need to set aside a few minutes to go through it all. In order to give support for the way I explained the meaning above (My comments again in parentheses):

"It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight. Hence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply: Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we need the grace of God." - Sixth Session Chapter 5 (This is a very important chapter to explain what the Council means when it is talking about us freely assenting and cooperating with grace. In other words, it is only by God's grace that we can even be prepared to receive God's grace. It is only by God's grace that we can freely assent to and cooperate with God's grace.)

“For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches, continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God" - Sixth Session Chapter 16 (All our good works are preceded by grace, accompanied by grace, and followed by grace. In other words all credit is to our Lord, we are his children given the grace to do his will.)

"Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own from ourselves, nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated, for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified by its inherence in us, that same is the justice of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ." - Sixth Session Chapter 16 (Even though Catholics say God makes us actually righteous ("our own justice" referenced in the first sentence) it is not from ourselves. In fact it is God's righteousness in us through the merit of Christ. In other words, we are reborn in Christ. We are a new creation.)

"Nor must this be omitted, that although in the sacred writings so much is attributed to good works, that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones, Christ promises, shall not lose his reward; and the Apostle testifies that, That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; nevertheless, far be it that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord, whose bounty toward all men is so great that He wishes the things that are His gifts to be their merits." - Sixth Session Chapter 16 (Even though Scripture makes so much of good works, nevertheless God forbid that we should trust or glory in ourselves and not in the Lord. He loves us so much that he rewards our works even though it is by his grace that we accomplish them.)

One more that speaks so clearly about what we are talking about:

"But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace." - Sixth Session Chapter 8 (Notice the last part where it says that nothing which precedes justification, whether faith or works, can earn the grace of justification. Because if it is grace, it is not by works, otherwise grace would not be grace. Also notice how the Council says it is to be understood in the sense the Catholic Church has always held it to be. Meaning this has always been the teaching of the Church and also meaning that it always will.)

Sorry to paste in so much in here, but most people pick and choose the parts that seem to show the Church saying what everyone has always told them she taught. Here are some of the parts that explain those harder to understand sections. I do not expect you to have read all of the Council of Trent, but woe to me if having you in this conversation I do not show you these parts. I hope this has been helpful and please let me know if you need any clarification anywhere.

I have read your reply and honestly don't see much we can continue to discuss here. What baffles me most is that you present (not wrongly) a view that so few catholics seem to know or understand. My sincere prayer is that you truly grasp what the word says about salvation. And that you will come to a point in your life where you know you are saved.

I've enjoyed the emails and will be willing to tackle any questions you might have. If our conversation ends here, I thank you immensely and wish you well.

I am sorry that you are baffled by my (which I have learned from the teachings of the Catholic Church) views of justification and salvation. Like I said from the beginning I did not want to talk about what some Catholics 'seem to know or understand', because I wanted to discuss what the Catholic Church taught. Who knows why certain people do not understand what the Church teaches. There are plenty of reasons that could be thought up, but it does not change what the Church teaches. I can find plenty of people in Protestant denominations who believe faith means intellectual assent and nothing more, but that does not prove anything about what your denomination teaches.

I hope you were able to read the examples I gave from the Council of Trent as I believe they are clear examples of what the Church means when she says, "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will." I hope I was able to show that she is consistent with Saint Paul's statement that it is "by grace you have been saved through faith" and Saint James' statements that "faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." and "as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead."

I have enjoyed our dialogue and appreciate that you approached these topics with charity. God bless you and those you serve in the gifts and ministry he has given to you. I will continue to pray…that you will be given the grace to follow God's will in your life.

As is evident a lot of issues were cleared up for him about what the Catholic Church teaches about justification and salvation. I do not pretend to think that he understands the Catholic teaching fully or that we mean the exact same things, but it is heartening to hear a Protestant say, “Faith is belief and action tied into one.”

The Catholic idea of salvation is all about sonship. Jesus, our Lord, is the Son of God. Because he has taken on human flesh and redeemed mankind we can become his brethren and likewise God’s sons. Apart from that redemption we are slaves. We are slaves to sin, the wages of which are death. Now that we have become sons of God we have been given an inheritance. Now a son cannot earn something he only has because of his relationship with his father. In the same way man cannot earn heaven; he can only inherit this gift from his loving Father.

I once read an analogy that I think sums all this up well by Tom Jensen:

A mother is baking a cake. Her little daughter comes in and wants to help mommy make the cake. The mother accepts her help and tells her how much flour to put in, when to put in the eggs, and holds her hand when she is mixing the ingredients, etc. In the analogy, God is the mother and we are the little girl.

Is the mother dependent on the girl’s help? No. Is the mother completely sufficient to the task? Yes. Is the daughter’s addition a real addition? Yes.

If the mother is completely sufficient to the task and doesn’t depend on the girl’s help, why does she accept it? Because love receives. The mother wants the daughter to grow up and mature, and image her example. God loves us as we are; but He loves us too much to let us stay that way.

A visiting priest gave the homily at Mass this week and was talking a little bit about salvation. When he got near the end of his homily he made it clear that no one can earn their salvation, but then he finished, “But I have never met anyone for whom Jesus is Lord that did not go about doing Christ’s work.”

Amen Father.

Once again I would like to thank my Protestant Evangelical friend for his charitable attitude throughout our conversation and ask anyone who may be reading this to pray for his intentions.
(Read More)

Where I Have Been (At Least In the U.S.)

As you can see I am not a big travelling fan of those northern states. In fact the swath in the central north is from a single trip I made to Reno, Nevada. You can kind of make out my path. What I remember from that trip was how large the sky seemed when I was crossing the plains. Immense.

Create your own visited states map.
(Read More)

Fasting

Steven D. Greydanus gives us a lot to think about in regards to fasting in A Short Primer on Fasting and More on fasting…. Spend some time reflecting on what he has to say in regards to this overly neglected aspect of Christian living.

After reading if you feel that God has led you to begin incorporating fasting into your life again, put that grace that God has given you to good use. Check out how people from 89 cities in 33 states are praying and fasting to end abortion in the 40 Days for Life campaign. The Fall 2007 Campaign Overview report is available in PDF format here.
(Read More)

Mr. T's ode to mothers

The greatest Mr. T. video of all-time.



Not that I have ever seen any others...
(Read More)

Denial of Holy Communion

Archbishop Raymond Burke of Saint Louis has published an article on the correct application of Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law on the denial of Holy Communion in regards to those who persist in manifest grave sin (the example being politicians who support abortion). If you have some time on your hands you can read it here. WARNING! It is a long article, but if you have been confused by this topic or are looking for the history of the Church's teachings in regards to this topic it is well worth the time invested. Ed Peters (a canon lawyer) comments on Archbishop Burke's article here.
(Read More)

The Grace of God

I was recently thinking about a conversation I had with Beth's old youth pastor when he found out that Beth had become Catholic. He was very concerned because, as he said, the Catholic Church's teachings on salvation contradicts what Saint Paul had to say on the matter. Of course I set about trying to assuage his mind of those thoughts.

At the end of the conversation he made a statement that is pretty typical of a Reformed Protestant when comparing the Catholic Church's teachings and his own beliefs about salvation, "In the latter salvation is all of God, in the former, man cooperates with God for salvation. Thus the difference between one man and another regarding his eternal state is not because of God’s sovereign work, it is that one man cooperated with God and the other did not. I believe this makes man’s eternal destiny rest (in the final analysis) upon man and not upon God." My reply at the time was, "The reason we do cooperate, is because God does give us the grace to do so! Is that so hard a concept to accept intellectually? God created us, chose us, graced us, and we, because of his very life in us, can love him in return. Being sons of God, all we do that is good, is only because it is God working in us. God does not force us to accept his gift. God allows us to receive and accept his gift - which we can not even do apart from his grace! If we do not accept his gift - we sin. The wages of which is death. Our cooperation is not something that is (or can be) done apart from God's grace. We have been adopted as sons, through Christ. We are now God's very own children. God is raising us up to receive an inheritance, not a wage. He is now our Father and just as a son cannot earn an inheritance, we cannot earn our salvation. It is something freely given, but it is something that you can refuse. Not because we have some innate power of ourselves, but because God in his sovereignty has chosen to offer us this gift, instead of forcing us to take it. Just because you perceive this to be a weakness does not make it so. Some would say it is a weakness for God to take on human flesh, and yet out of his superabundant love he did just such a thing.".

As I thought about this I recalled that most Reformed Protestants also seem to be almost spooked when I mention my idea that God is always reaching out to all of us with his grace, always calling us, always desiring our repentance. I do not know if this is in fact the way that God works, but it does seem consistent with Christ's death on the cross.

Personally, I do not understand why people put limits on the grace of God. All Christians readily admit that God took on human flesh, suffered, and was crucified to undo what Adam had done at the Fall. To reestablish the human race with its Creator so that we could be his children. What makes man think that the God that would go to such lengths to make our salvation possible, would abandon us after we had been redeemed. Would not God pursue us with his grace constantly and consistently since he had purchased us at such a great price. Would the God who would lower himself down from his throne to die for us not pursue us, literally, to our grave?

Bringing this back to Beth's old youth pastor's statement, would not each of the hypothetical men who had been redeemed by Christ also be given the grace needed to resist sin and turn to God in each and every moment of his life? Would not the man that went to heaven at the end of his days only be able to say about why he was there, "It is only by God's grace." Would the difference then be not that the man who went to heaven did something in and of himself, but the man who went to hell?
(Read More)

Assurance of Salvation - A Correspondence

About two months ago I received an e-mail from a Protestant Evangelical asking me just one question. “What, in your personal opinion, do you understand it takes for a person to go to heaven?” I am plenty familiar with this question as an opening to share the Gospel with someone and assumed that this was where he wanted the conversation to go to. You can never hear the Good News enough, so I answered him simply and shortly in order to find out his intentions. What followed was a conversation that ended up covering a few different topics. When you are presented with the presentation of the Gospel by a certain kind of Protestant Evangelical they invariably concentrate on two areas. One is that you must place your trust in our Lord for your salvation. That is certainly something that any Catholic should be able to say a hearty Amen to. The other one in particular seems to be where some Protestant Evangelicals get caught in a logical contradiction from which they do not want to extract themselves. That topic is the assurance of salvation and it is what I want to focus on from our conversation.

For those who subscribe to an assurance of salvation that is absolute, they seem to commit two errors. The first is they seem to say if you do not know with absolute certitude that you are saved, then you are not saved. They won’t come right out and say it (well some of them won’t), but it seems to be the general thrust of their concern for you. You will be repeatedly asked if you know that you will be in heaven. If you admit that you don’t know with absolute certitude the switch goes off and you are treated as if you are not going to heaven. The second error involves man’s depravity and man’s knowledge of his final salvation. They will admit that man is depraved and that because of this man is capable of deceiving himself, even about his own salvation. What they never seem to want to admit is the logical consequence of this possibility of deception; that man cannot know his final salvation with absolute certitude if he is capable of deceiving himself.

To show you what I mean I have included parts of our conversation below. I have received permission from the individual to post this. His words will be in red and mine will be in green. WARNING! This post is very long so click on the link below only if you have a few minutes to continue reading.

I'd love to get your opinion on something. What, in your personal opinion, do you understand it takes for a person to go to heaven?

A simple summary of what the Catholic Church teaches you must do to be saved is: Repent, believe, and be baptized. (Mark 1:15 & Acts 2:38) We repent because we are sinners in need of God’s grace and God sent his only Son, while we were his enemies, to die for us. (Romans 5:8) We believe, because it is through faith in Christ that we receive salvation. (Mark 16:16, John 3:26 & 6:40) We are baptized, because Jesus has told us that we must be born again, of water and of Spirit to enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5, Mark 16:16)

Based upon your answer, I am quite saved…I'm not sure you would agree with that though. So, am I missing something?

I am pretty sure that whether I agree you are saved or not does not matter.

God has made it clear that it is he who judges the hearts of men and it is before him you will stand when your judgment comes, not me. I say that with all sincerity, because people get caught up in playing the 'I am saved and he is not' game. It is a deadly game. We are not God. We (and I can not stress this strongly enough) do not get to tell God who goes to heaven. Not even in regards to ourselves.

God has revealed to man the Way to heaven and that is his Son, Jesus Christ. We can know with a great degree of certainty that we are following this Way. That assurance of heaven is a great gift, but it is not an absolute certainty. We are called to work out our salvation in fear and trembling and to pick up our cross and follow Jesus. There are severe warnings of hell in Scripture to those whose faith does not work in love and for those who commit sins unto death. Only those who persevere until the end will be saved.

That is why Catholics, do not as a general rule, talk about already being saved. It is not because it is theologically wrong, but because it is theologically incomplete. It is not the only way salvation is spoken of in Scripture. Conversion in the Catholic Church is not a one time decision, but a life-long journey. We are called to convert in every moment of every day. We are called to turn over everything to Christ, whatever our station in life. Wherever we are, in whatever we do, it must all be given to our Lord. As you can imagine this is no easy task for us sinners. But thanks be to God for his grace!

Thanks for your clear reply. I agree with a majority of what you have shared…As for the judging issue, I agree to some degree. No one knows the heart but God. I can have absolute assurance of my salvation ("I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."1 John 5:13) and I can have pretty a good idea based upon the spiritual fruit whether someone else knows Jesus or not. Granted, only God knows the absolute truth on that but He has given me indicators I can look for.

Todd, you are not far off in your understanding (that is assuming that semantically we are on the same page) but I fear that you have missed the "extra baggage" that so many pickup from the Catholic church. In a sense, that is good because you don't need it. But the negative is that you defend the Catholic church without the awareness of what the average Catholic understands the church to teach. I witness to others often and have met many Catholics. I can honestly tell you that in the years I have done that I have yet to meet a Catholic (barring yourself) who understood and could articulate for me what it takes to be saved. They either don't have a clue, give a complete works based salvation answer, or give me some of the true gospel with extra works.

Let me clear up some misconceptions that you seem to have acquired. Maybe I have not been as clear as you credit me for.

The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, but not by a faith that is alone. Scripture is absolutely clear about this point. It must be a faith that works in love (Galatians 5:6). Faith that is apart from works is dead (James 2:26). You can have all the faith that it is possible for you to have, but without love you are nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2b). Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans talks repeatedly about faith and I am sure in response to the above you might quote some of those verses. However, Saint Paul makes it abundantly clear the first and last times he mentions faith in that letter what he means by it. He speaks of the "obedience of faith" (Romans 1:5 & 16:26). Faith is not just an intellectual assent to truth.

Many who claim the Catholic Church teaches that man is saved by his own works simply do not know what the Church teaches. The Church specifically (and repeatedly) says that this is heresy. She has always condemned the idea that man, apart from God's grace, can do anything supernaturally good.

What she also condemns is the idea that it is only through faith (separated from hope and love) that we are saved. Even the demons believe... (James 2:19b) He gives us faith, hope, and love to accomplish our salvation. The Catholic Church teaches that everything that we need to go to heaven is because of God's grace which has been merited for us by the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are called to respond to that gift in love. Even this response is because of God's grace, because apart from that grace we have nothing to offer.

I would like to give you…[something]…to think about in regards to…[an]other topic that you also mention.

You claim an absolute assurance of salvation. I assume you would also agree that you are a sinner (redeemed by Christ, but a sinner nonetheless.) Is it not possible that as a sinner you could be deceiving yourself about your guaranteed entrance into heaven? If it is possible to deceive yourself then your assurance is not absolute. Remember, I do not argue against assurance, just an absolute one.

Yes and No. Yes, we are that totally depraved that we could deceive ourselves. But, I am also given a clear and absolute message from God's word on what it takes to be saved. 1 John 5:13 uses a very strong word, "know". He says you can "know". Not "hope so", "trust so", "maybe so" but you can know. I have repented of my sins, put my faith in Christ alone, and am sealed by the Holy Spirit as His. So, I do have complete, absoute assurance that I am saved and guaranteed eternal life. I know that I know that I know that I am saved. It is not based upon feeling or opinion but on the unchanging truth presented in God's word.

This is going to stay stalled here as you admit that it is possible that you as a fallen (but redeemed) human being could deceive yourself. As long as you admit to that, your assurance can not be absolute (i.e. infallible).

I readily admit to knowing one is going to heaven. I also know (in the sense that according to God's Revelation it seems I am fulfilling his requirements - repentance, faith, Baptism) that I am going to heaven. I do realize that there is the possibility that I could be deceiving myself. So although my assurance is real (i.e. I know), it is not absolute (i.e. infallible). Do I think it likely that I am wrong? No. Is there a possibility that I could be deceiving myself? Yes. That is why my complete dependence is and must always be upon the mercy of God.

I knew that was coming. :) I knew because the question really was two and I struggled to give it one answer. So, allow me to clear up my mistake.

Question one: “Is it not possible that as a sinner you could be deceiving yourself about your guaranteed entrance into heaven.”

Answer: I said “yes” in the since that it is quite possible for anyone (including me) to deceive themselves. In fact, I believe (and the Scriptures confirm) that there are many individuals of different religions, philosophies, ideologies, etc. that have deceived themselves into thinking they’ve got it right and are spiritually safe. (read Proverbs 14:12 or 16:25 for example). I also believe there are many who claim the name “Christian” who are in fact not. They believe they are okay but they are in fact spiritually dead and lost (not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” as Matthew 7:21 points out). So, yes, it is possible for anyone to deceive themselves into thinking they are okay when they in fact are not.

Question two (assumed but not stated): Is there a way to have absolute assurance that you are not deceived and that you have eternal life?

Answer: Yes. Jesus (and Him alone) can remove all doubt and give you an absolute 100% assurance that you are His and promised eternal life with Him.

-Again, 1 John 5:13, John says that he wrote his letter that we may “know” we have eternal life. Not hope, assume, gamble on, but KNOW.

- Peter writes, “Therefore, brothers, make every effort to confirm your calling and election, because if you do these things you will never stumble. For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly supplied to you. (2 Peter 1:10-11) Why tell us to pursue something we can’t achieve. He says we are to confirm our calling and election. Why? Because when you come to that point of assurance you have the promise of entry into the eternal kingdom! Amen!

- The Word is clear that when one is in the hand of God no man can pluck them out ( John 10:28). Thus implying that there is a moment you are placed in the palm of His hand (moment of salvation) and when you are there you are sealed eternally as His.

- Jesus promises that those who come to Him will not be cast out and that they are promised eternal life. It’s not that we simply hope for it with no guarantee. It is a hope that is 100% assured of what will come. So, when I repented of my sins and placed my faith in Christ alone, He removed all doubt and fear and gave me forgiveness, freedom, purpose, meaning, and the guarantee of eternal life. I have been sealed by Him and the seal can’t be broken (Ephesians 1:13, 4:30)! Again, Amen!

-I’m reminded of the man who cried out to Jesus “I do believe; help my unbelief" (Mark 9:24). Well, which is it. Did he believe or not? In essence, what he said was “Yes, I believe” but there was a part of him that still doubted. So, he admitted it and asked Jesus to removed it. Before I knew Jesus, I had no assurance of where I would spend eternity. I had my opinion and if someone had asked me “Do you believe you’ll go to heaven?”, I would have answered “Yes” but with serious reservations. But when I came to Christ, all doubt washed away. I was free indeed and my name was forever written in the Lamb’s book of life. So, YES I have complete assurance not because I’m infallible but because He and His word is. It is a confident assurance anyone can have if they place their complete hope, trust, faith, and life in Jesus hands.

On another not, I must say, to be fair in the conversation, that you are guilty of the crime you pointed out I committed.

> You said: “I readily admit to knowing one is going to heaven.”
And also: “I do realize that there is the possibility that I could be deceiving myself. So
although my assurance is real (i.e. I know), it is not absolute (i.e. infallible).” >

Putting the words “I know” and “not absolute” in the same sentence is quite incompatible. If it is not absolute, then you don’t know. You may hope so or strongly lean in that direction. But you can’t “know”.

It does not seem to me that you have changed your argument enough for it to work.

Your definition of 'know' is patently ridiculous. I know Australia exists, but I do not know that absolutely. I know my birthday, but I do not know that absolutely. I know your name is **** ******...and you are...[located] in *****, **, but I do not know that absolutely. You can change the definition of know if you want, but this conversation is going to be a lot harder if we are redefining words as we go along.

Both of us I am sure have met those who had a genuine conversion to Christ. They loved him, served him and his people, yet fell away and no longer claim Christ as Lord. Genuine fruit was produced by these people (as far as we could tell) and yet they still fell away. People who claimed to 'know' (as you define it - infallibly) that they were saved and going to heaven. It is obvious to us now that unless they repent and return to the Lord that they (as far as we know) will end up in hell. I am bringing this up, because it is a real life example. I can not imagine that you are in ministry and you have not witnessed this firsthand at least once. I know I have. I am pretty sure I know what you might say. If they do not repent, they were never saved to begin with. If that is your answer, how does that change the knowledge that they thought they possessed about their salvation? It only places it right back where it was before. They knew, but they deceived themselves.

This really is a side topic as far as I am concerned (maybe it is not so to you) and it seems that you have not really changed your argument from before. You just moved it sideways a bit.

I really do understand your position and am baffled how you do not understand mine. This will be my final appeal on this issue. In the end, your dilemma is not with me but with the Lord Himself.

YES, man can (and so often does) deceive himself into thinking he is right with God. The heart is deceitfully wicked. Who can know it? But you would have us blind before Christ and only slightly with one eye open after Him. My proclamation to you is that when a man comes to Christ He can see. And, as the Word says, we are free “indeed”.

As for those that you mentioned who claimed to be Christians and had fruit to show. I can only give you the words of John:
“They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us.” 1 John 2:19 (HCSB)

They were not what they appeared. They were never saved (of us) in the first place. If they were truly saved they will in time be wooed back by the Holy Spirit that dwells within them.

You seem to have stumbled philosophically and can’t seem to get up but you’ve yet to interact with Scriptures I have shared that declare to you that you can “know” you are saved. Jesus gave promises, guarantees, and assurances throughout His messages.

As for the definition of “know”, my friend, how in the world WOULD you define it. It means to behold something. To obtain something. To grasp something. A man who says that he “knows” Australia exist and then follows that with “not absolutely” knows nothing. He has an opinion, a preference, a premonition, but he does not have knowledge. Does he “know”? Absolutely not. He’s unsure whether or not he knows. But ask the man in Australia if he knows. Of course he does.

Do I know (with absolute assurance) that I am saved and guaranteed eternal life? Yes. How can I say such? Because I stand on the land of His grace. It isn’t based upon feeling. It isn’t my opinion. It is what God said in His Word. Who am I to argue with Him? He declared it not I. He said if I came to Him in repentance and faith I would be saved and have eternal life.

And Todd, you can have this absolute assurance too. If you repent of your sins and put your total faith in Christ alone. If you claim you have done that, then stand on the promises of God’s Word. I can assure you that this issue is THE issue. I’m trying to invite you to a place where you can know you are His and you have a place with Him in heaven. He offers it to you. Will you take it?

Two quick comments as this particular discussion is quickly going nowhere.

The reason I have not interacted with the Scriptures you have put up as a defense is that I have no argument or problem with them. I agree with them, as I have explained previously my position in regards to man’s assurance of salvation. My argument is that although you admit that Scripture speaks of an assurance, you also admit Scripture speaks of man deceiving himself (even in regards to his own salvation.) Yet you refuse to apply basic logic to your argument. If a man can deceive himself, then his assurance is not infallible (i.e. without error, not absolute.) If you presented me with an argument that stated man’s ability to deceive himself is somehow abrogated, then that would be a different matter. You have yet to do so.

As to what knowledge is, you know very well that you can know something in many different ways. The example of Australia shows that my knowledge of its existence is based on my faith in someone else telling me it exists and my correct reception of that information. I have personally never been there. I have never seen it myself. In other words my knowledge is based on the experience of someone else. My knowledge…is not absolute; it is not infallible (i.e. without the possibility of error). There are many ways I can be in error, but I only need one possibility for it not to be absolute.

Knowledge does not mean absolute certitude. If you can not admit to that then I am at a loss as to how to respond to you. If we can get past this particular part, I will interact with you on your other points about assurance. If not, I think we should move on to other things.

In reference to assurance, I aggree it seems we must move on in our discussion. I agree we disagree.

I am confident I can say, "Do I know (with absolute assurance) that I am saved and guaranteed eternal life? Yes. How can I say such? Because I stand on the land of His grace. It isn’t based upon feeling. It isn’t my opinion. It is what God said in His Word. Who am I to argue with Him? He declared it not I. He said if I came to Him in repentance and faith I would be saved and have eternal life."

If you don't have the confidence to say the same about yourself, well, I leave that between you and Jesus. I have presented my plea and now I will leave it as is.

As for your comment, "And that you will come to a point in your life where you know you are saved." (This is quoted from another part of our conversation about Justification.) I know that my salvation is in the hands of the Lord and I can not think of a better place for it to be. I certainly do not believe that my saying, "I know (infallibly) I am saved" is what God requires of me for salvation. No matter how you have presented your case in regards to this it seems that is what you are saying I must do for God to save me. God's Word does not say this anywhere. In fact, there are many warnings for those who would presume such a thing. My hope is that you will rely on God for your salvation instead of relying on an 'absolute knowledge' of your salvation. The former is faith, the latter is presumption.

> "I certainly do not believe that my saying, "I know (infallibly) I am saved is what God requires of me for salvation." <

Completely agree.

> "No matter how you have presented your case in regards to this it seems that is what you are saying I must do for God to save me." <

Sorry that this was your intepretation but it is clearly not what I was saying. Your saying so would not change a thing. It isn't what you or I say but what God has or has not done in the our heart.

> "My hope is that you will rely on God for your salvation instead of relying on an 'absolute knowledge' of your salvation. The former is faith, the latter is presumption." <

Let me calm your fears. My salvation is SOLELY a reliance on God. That is WHY I have absolute assurance. Remember, "faith" is the EVIDENCE of things unseen.

This conversation is a great example of some of the typical logical errors I come across in conversations with some Protestant Evangelicals in regards to the assurance of our salvation. He repeatedly states that a Christian can be deceived, even about his own salvation. He also repeatedly states that he knows (with absolute certitude) that he will be in heaven. For some reason, unknown to me, he does not see the logical contradiction in these two statements. He also seems to stress that this knowledge (absolute certitude) of salvation is the most important issue. He seems to equate this absolute certitude with entrance into heaven. When I called him on it and said that it was what he seemed to be saying, he denied that is what he meant. He explained that it is because God's Word says that if he does what he did (repented and believed) that he would be saved. My whole and repeated point was that was not all God's Word said on the subject. He would not interact with that point though and I was forced to abandon the conversation.

Reading his statement below I find it hard to get around his equating this absolute certitude with entrance into heaven:

And Todd, you can have this absolute assurance too. If you repent of your sins and put your total faith in Christ alone. If you claim you have done that, then stand on the promises of God’s Word. I can assure you that this issue is THE issue. I’m trying to invite you to a place where you can know you are His and you have a place with Him in heaven. He offers it to you. Will you take it?

Why else is it THE issue. This statement of it being THE issue was in response to me saying that assurance, “is a side topic as far as I am concerned (maybe it is not so to you).” Why else would having this absolute certitude be so important. God’s promise is enough for me to be assured of my salvation, but it in no way draws me to the conclusion that I can no longer deceive myself. I have been around myself too long to believe that concupiscence is suspended merely because I said I know I will be saved.

Maybe I have misunderstood him. Maybe I have let the typical misunderstandings between Protestants and Catholics get in the way of giving him the benefit of the doubt (as I am required to do in charity), but he did not seem to want to explain the contradiction head on. He would only continue to repeat his original statements. In putting this together I sent him a copy of this post and asked him to write a response to the conclusions that I have drawn. He responded that he was comfortable with what I had put together and if he felt the need he would respond in the comment section. Since he is ok with it, I will conclude.

As Catholics we must place our full and undivided trust in God and the promise of mercy he has made to those who become his children. To my Protestant Evangelical friend this also means a guaranteed place in heaven. I will grant that he is correct if in fact our Lord made little robots, but he did not. He made people who are capable of rejecting the gift and unfortunately even those who are in a right relationship with him can turn away. One of the ways this is described in Scripture is that person’s name being blotted out of the Book of Life. It is not a pleasant thing to contemplate, but God has told us that it is possible. I came across a quote from Saint Augustine that I think sums up why any man who claims Christ as Lord should always hope, but never presume that heaven will be his home. “For no one is known to another so intimately as he is known to himself, and yet no one is so well known even to himself that he can be sure as to his own conduct on the morrow;...yet the minds of men are so unknown and so unstable, that there is the highest wisdom in the exhortation of the apostle: ‘Judge nothing before the time until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise of God.’"

P.S. I will be posting another part of our conversation soon (pending his approval) where we did seem to agree in the end. Sometimes these conversations are fruitful in clearing up misconceptions and sometimes as above they are not, but I think as long as they are done in charity they will eventually bear fruit even if it is not obvious it has done so in the present. Even though we do not agree on some things, I would like to thank my Protestant Evangelical friend for his willingness to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ and for his charitable attitude throughout our conversation.
(Read More)

Internet Service Providers (Part Two)

As you may recall we have been in the process of changing our internet service provider, because of connection problems on par with nothing we have ever experienced before. I ordered DSL through AT&T (Bellsouth) and about five days later we received some very nice looking DSL filters for our phones, but no modem. I guess it was bound to happen, but I was still optimistic. My confirmation e-mail(the one telling me when I would receive my self-install kit and my service activation date) had a link to an online service representative and I decided on giving that a try instead of sitting on hold on the phone for thirty minutes. It was a surprisingly simple and quick experience. Within about ten minutes they had placed an order for the DSL modem that they had forgotten to send me. We received the modem and set it up last night. So this is my first post with our new DSL connection. Goodbye DirecPath.

Now why Bellsouth did not sent the modem to me in the first place I guess will remain a mystery...
(Read More)

Our will is free in Christ Jesus

Greg Krehbiel over at crowhill.net ponders the usefulness of free will. So much so that he denies the existence of it. Well, at least how he defines all the rest of us understanding it.

I have always thought of free will as the grace (gift) to choose God's will.

God gives us gifts out of love. The gift is given. Free will is in the use of his gifts. For God gives us the ability to use his gifts. As a creature we cannot use anything by our own power. We are dependant upon God to give us the power to use it. It is within the ability to use a gift that our free will comes into play. Without God we have no ability to use a gift. With God we have the ability to use a gift. So when we use a gift it is by God’s grace and power that we can use it. When we refuse to use a gift we are choosing nothing and that is not something given to us by God. It is returning to a graceless state of powerlessness. It is a rejection of the grace we have been given to use his gifts and therefore against the will of God. It is sin. So God gave us the gift of obedience and told Adam to not eat of the fruit. When Adam ate of the fruit he did not use the gift that was given to him by God to accomplish God’s will, and so he sinned. All of sin comes down to that rejection of God's will (i.e. refusing the gift). The greatest thing about the incarnation is that the gift that God has given us is himself. That is why rejecting that gift is damnation.

In other words, rejection of the gift is based in the freedom of the gift. God gives us the grace to accept or use the gift, yet we can still 'choose nothing' (i.e. refuse the gift) and remain without God's grace. All of God's gifts are freely given, but they are not without cost. We can not pay that cost, and so we can not 'choose' to accept. Our acceptance has already been paid for and so any 'choice' to accept is not our own. So in a way Greg is right. However, we can choose to reject, because there is no cost in receiving nothing.
(Read More)

Waiting In Joyful Hope 2.0

Welcome to WIJH version 2.0. As you can see things look a bit different around here. I decided to get away from Blogger's classic template and make the plunge as some of the things that I wanted to do were just becoming too complicated. When I did figure out a work around they didn't end up quite the way I wanted them to. So here it is. Let me know if you come across any problems and I will try and fix them as soon as possible.
(Read More)

Faith and Life Parish Lessons

This past summer I did something that I think I am ordered to in regards to the talents God has given me. I took a Catholic school curriculum for 1st through 8th grades and turned them into Parish lesson plans that can be used for CCD (Sunday school).

Ignatius Press has a wonderful religious education curriculum for Catholic schools called Faith and Life. It was orthodox when orthodoxy was, let's just say, in a more hostile environment than it is now and it is just an all around great curriculum. Because in the past there were not so many CCD curriculums that were faithful to the Magisterium a lot of Parishes used this Catholic school curriculum for their CCD classes. Unfortunately Faith and Life was not designed with the typical volunteer CCD catechist in mind. It has tons more information than you can pack into a typical 1 hour CCD class. Requiring a volunteer catechist to sift through everything to come up with a lesson was a heavy burden to place on them. Ignatius Press decided to create lesson plans that would ease that burden and hopefully that is what has been accomplished.

I became aware of this project through my old boss at Saint Brigid, Julie Johnson, who now works for Ignatius Press. It took about a month longer than I thought, but I think the end product is what Ignatius was looking for. Hopefully all those overworked CCD catechists out there find it to be what they were looking for too.

Here are the Parish lessons which are now available for 1st through 8th grades.

Here is the home page for the Faith and Life series.
(Read More)

Internet Service Providers

You may have noticed that it has been a bit sparse in the posting department the last few weeks. There are a few reasons. Things have been really busy with my company, I have been taking some classes online and the biggest reason is that the company that is supplying my internet connection is just awful.

Some days we are lucky to keep our connection for sixty seconds at a time. We live in a apartment/townhome complex that has a contract with a company called DirecPath. Among the services they provide are "high" speed internet access. We have never had worse service from a broadband internet connection. It is simply awful.

I was warned when I moved in here (by the people working for the complex no less) to stay away from them, but I figured how bad could it be. We didn't have a phone line (we just use our cell phones) so DSL, which is the only other option, was not an option for us. When I originally called them up to pick one of their packages (they also provide cable or satellite TV) the person who I dealt with knew next to nothing about their prices or policies. The installer was nice enough (subcontractor) and everything went smoothly with the installation. However I received my first bill and they charged me for an extra DVR that I did not purchase. After I called them up and dealt with a few different people I found someone that said they would credit the charge to my account. A couple of bills later no credit had appeared and I went through the phone fun again. Again I was assured that I would receive the credit. This time I got it. Woohoo. We would have service outages two or three times a week, but the connection generally worked. Then a few days after we returned home from our vacation it started to disconnect constantly. I would reset the equipment, but that didn't seem to help. Every once in awhile we would get a steady connection that might last thirty minutes, but for the most part we would get a minute tops.

We finally had enough with it and called up AT&T (aka the old Bellsouth (aka for those of you old enough the old AT&T)) to get a phone line and DSL service. Providentially, with the rebates it will end up costing us about the same per month even with the additional cost of the phone line. At least for the first year.

So that is our sad story. Hopefully I will get back into the swing of things again. Maybe Beth might even be convinced to write something...
(Read More)

The Return of Us

Well, we're back. We had a wonderful time with Beth's family. We traveled to Connecticut and stayed with Beth's step-sister and her family for a few days. Then we headed over to the Adirondacks in New York to go to Camp of the Woods (there is a made-up song, but I won't bore you). Following camp we went back to Connecticut for a day and then we went to Virginia (to see part of Beth's mom's side of the family) for a day and finally home. Since I have pretty much given up on Beth ever posting on here again, I guess I will have to post some of the pictures.

Usually, over the course of the week at camp, we put together a puzzle. Once, a couple of years back, we decided to burn the puzzle on our last night at camp and it has turned into a slightly deranged tradition. Anyway, here is a before shot...


Holding the puzzle is Beth's step-mother Donna on the left and on the right is Donna's sister Linda. In the chair is our niece Hannah.


Above is the main reason that the slightly deranged burning of the first puzzle became a slightly deranged tradition: really cool puzzle on fire pictures. (Click the picture to see it blown up.)


Here is a shot of everyone this year. Beth's step-brother's family could not be here this year so it was a little smaller than normal. In the front, left to right, Donna (Beth's step-mother), Linda (Donna's sister), Dana (Beth's step-sister), and on her lap Josiah (Dana & Diego's son). In the middle, Grandpa Ken (Donna's father) and on his lap, Hannah (Dana & Diego's daughter). In the rear, from left to right, Beth, Paul (Beth's dad), me, and Diego (Dana's husband).

It's good to be home.
(Read More)

Vacation...

Beth and I are out of town on vacation for the next two weeks. In fact I am posting this from up in the beautiful state of Connecticut.

We have gone to a Christian Family Resort for five out of the last six years for our main vacation. Beth's step-mother's family has been going for the past 50 years or so. It is a nice time to spend with family and the speakers are generally good. We will be heading over there next week. I will try and post something as the vacation progresses if something interesting happens. If not, see you in a couple of weeks.
(Read More)

Commenting Problems

A couple of days ago I noticed that I was not receiving any new comments. (Not that I receive a lot normally...) It did not dawn on me that when I had changed the way the comments appear that I did not add a link to post a comment. So for any who tried to comment but could not, I apologize - get back to it. If no one was trying to comment...please go about your business of not commenting.

If you do change your commenting mind, it seems to work properly now.
(Read More)

"Common Ground: What Protestants and Catholics Can Learn From Each Other"

Check out TBN on July 14 at 5 PM Eastern (The link has the time listed for the Pacific time zone). They will be broadcasting a conversation between a non-denominational pastor and a Catholic priest. Here is a short clip (Quicktime) of the priest speaking about the sacraments. If this is any example of the rest of the conversation it will be excellent.

Here is some background on how it all came about.

If you miss the broadcast, order a copy of the DVD from Nineveh's Crossing.
(Read More)

Motu Proprio

Pope Benedict XVI's long awaited apostolic letter concerning the Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal is here.

Here is the text of the Motu Proprio.

Here is the text of the accompanying letter.

Jimmy Akin's comments here.

I have never (unless as an infant and without my knowledge) attended a Mass celebrated under the previous Roman Missal. I do not have any problems with it and I do not understand the arguments put forth against it (namely concern that it will cause division.) However, there is one argument that is for it that does not make sense to me.

Some proponents of having Mass in the older form state that it will cause more reverence in the celebration of the current form of the Mass. It seems to me that any priest who has the knowledge and desire to celebrate the Mass in the older form will probably be interested in reverence already. If that is true then they would be celebrating the current form reverently also. Reverence is a matter of conversion as is anything that has to do with following Christ. Conversion only comes about through God's grace. Whether the older form of the Mass is a way God is instilling reverence back into his people or not we will have to wait and see.
(Read More)

Exploding soda can of death

Well, maybe not of death...

You may not be aware, but there is a spot in the rear of your (or at least our) refrigerator where the cold air flows down and which is much colder than the overall temperature. We discovered this a couple of years ago when we started buying cases of bottled water and stacked them from the rear of the refrigerator to the front. When we would reach the rear row, the middle bottle would be frozen solid from this local jet stream. Normally this would not be a big deal. The bottle would be moved to the door and over a few days would thaw to liquid really cold instead of solid really cold.

Recently, we bought more soda than we normally do and Beth placed some in that sweet spot. A few days later I was working on the laptop (as I am prone to do) and I hear a loud noise followed by the noise that humanity associates with the ice maker dropping ice. I opened the freezer and did not notice a large amount of overflowing ice or anything else out of the ordinary. So I went about my business. Later on that day I opened the refrigerator and found a not-so-nice surprise.

For those of you who are interested, this is what a soda can looks like after it has exploded.


For those who are wondering what happened to the the top...


Here is an interior shot of the aftermath. This is the shelf below the explosion.


By the way, as Beth can testify, exploding frozen soda gets into pretty much every nook and cranny.
(Read More)

Prayer Request Update

My father's surgery went well. He received two stents in one of his coronary arteries and we brought him home today. Please pray that his recovery continues to go well.
(Read More)

Prayer Request

To anyone so inclined:

Please pray for my father as he is having a cardiac catheterization sometime today (7/3). He also could be having angioplasty and/or a stent procedure done depending on what shows up during the catheterization process.

Anytime spent with our Lord on his behalf is much appreciated.
(Read More)

Division

Chris Hilliard comments here and here in response to some things I said about dividing Christ's body, the Church.

I think we can all agree that Christ built his Church. He is explicit that he has done so. We can see this in Saint Matthew's gospel,¹ when Jesus says, "I will build my Church." There are numerous places in Scripture where the Church is called Christ's Body and that we are members of that Body.² I also think it is clear that there can only be one Body. Christ does not have two bodies, but one. The Church, which was given Christ's authority, in a unique way to Peter³ and in a more general way to the apostles united with Peter⁴ , cannot teach two opposing things and call them both truth.

Following this, one thing simply cannot exist which Mr. Hilliard seems to claim does. When division happens over a truth of the faith, both groups cannot claim to be the Church proclaiming the truth. Christ promised that what was bound on earth by Peter and the apostles (and their successors)⁵ would be bound in heaven. God will not call something true which is false. One group has separated themselves from God's given authority and therefore the truth.

That is why division is ugly, a scandal, and sinful. That is why our Lord prayed for the unity of his followers.⁶ It is why he says that the result of that unity is, so that the world may know that the Father has sent Jesus and loves them. Disunity causes a fractured witness of Christ which results in the world not knowing that the Father sent Jesus which blinds them to his love. That seems like a pretty strong indictment against division to me.

Here are the Scripture verses (his comments in parenthesis) Mr. Hilliard uses in support of his statement that division is necessary,

If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother (reconciliation and unity, God's ideal and design). 16 But if he won’t listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. If he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn’t pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you (in other words, separate/divide, which is not the ideal but is necessary).
Matt 18:15-17 (HCSB)

And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter (and is unified with us in this, God's design and ideal), take note of that person; don’t associate with him (separate, not the ideal but the God commanded necessity), so that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet don’t treat him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. 2 Thess 3:14-15 (HCSB)

If the logical results of the triage system Mr. Hilliard espoused in his blog entry were the above I would have no problem with it. However, the logical result of the triage system is for real divisions to happen. Not the Church excommunicating an individual in the hopes of his repentance. Not an individual shunning somone so that his shame will bring him to repentance. With the triage system, you do not get those results. You get two people or groups who divide to spread their 'truth' to others and whose witness about the other person is, 'I don't think he is right about this, but since no one can really know for sure about this stuff he doesn't need to repent. After all it's a second tier doctrine so he is going to heaven.'

I am going to suspend the fact that I (and the Church) do not believe Mr. Hilliard's community has the apostolic authority to render these judgments for the sake of going through his argument. (I do not mean that as a cheap shot, I am sure there are things he does not believe that the Catholic Church claims and I would not expect him to pretend that he does.) What you get is a scenario like this: 'Chris and I go to the same church. I don't agree with Chris about doctrine X. Since our church agrees with his interpretation, I should listen to the church. However, I believe this is a second tier doctrine even though they think it is a first tier doctrine. Since I disagree with my church on something they believe is necessary for salvation, I should go over to this other church (or start my own for that matter) where the truth (according to me) is taught.'

This is just one of many scenarios that could result from the system. I do not want to belabor the point by giving you seventy more, but the chaos that results from this system would make it all too easy. There are two major flaws with this system. One is the premise that there are things that can not be compromised (2nd tier), yet we can all still be one Body if we disagree about them. Let me put it as simply as I can. I believe X is true. You believe Y is true, which says X is false. This doctrine is so important to us that we divide. How can either one of us claim to proclaim the Gospel if we divide the Body of Christ? There are really only two possibilities. One of us is wrong or this thing we disagree about is trivial. Which is it? If it is the first then I can not in good conscience say that your group is the Church and we are also the Church while you preach a lie as truth. If it is the second, you are my brother in Christ and we should not be divided. Two people proclaiming two opposing 'truths' cannot claim to be one in Body.

The second and more important problem is there is no one with apostolic authority (which is from Christ himself) to make judgments about what is the truth. In fact, except for the fact that the system assumes someone has the authority to decide what teaching goes in what tier, it is designed around the fact that no one has the authority to tell people what the truth is. Its whole purpose is that. It sets out to make it easier for those who do not have an authority to easily separate what is important and what is not. I think I have shown it comes up short. Like I said before, this gets down to authority and that is a different, but related topic. Maybe that topic might be breached in a separate entry, but for now I will leave it at that.

---

All Scripture quotations taken from the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition, unless otherwise noted.

Footnotes

[1] Matthew 16:18 ^
[2] 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Romans 12:4-5; Ephesians 4:1-4, 15-16; etc. ^
[3] Matthew 16:19 ^
[4] Matthew 18:18 ^
[5] 2 Timothy 2:1-2 ^
[6] John 17:20-23 ^
(Read More)

"Bought With A Price"

Bishop Paul S. Loverde of the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia has written a pastoral letter (PDF) on pornography. Pornography is a scourge on this nation and a virtually ignored one at that. God bless Bishop Loverde for his witness to the dignity of the human person. Please take a few minutes and read this timely letter.

Some quotes:

"This plague stalks the souls of men, women and children, ravages the bonds of marriage and victimizes the most innocent among us. It obscures and destroys people’s ability to see one another as unique and beautiful expressions of God’s creation, instead darkening their vision, causing them to view others as objects to be used and manipulated. It has been excused as an outlet for free expression, supported as a business venture, and condoned as just another form of entertainment. It is not widely recognized as a threat to life and happiness. It is not often treated as a destructive addiction. It changes the way men and women treat one another in sometimes dramatic but often subtle ways. And it is not going away."

---

"Yet this plague extends far beyond the boundaries of church or school. The victims of this plague are countless. Today, perhaps more so than at any time previously, man finds his gift of sight and therefore his vision of God distorted by the evil of pornography."

---

"In a culture that sees pornography as a mere private weakness or even as a legitimate pleasure to be protected by law, we must repeat here the Catholic Church’s constant teaching. In simple terms, the Catechism of the Catholic Church condemns pornography as a grave offense (CCC 2354)."

---

"There cannot be a “temperate” use of pornography, just as there cannot be a “temperate” use of hatred or racism. To pose such a possibility is to accept giving in to evil one step at a time. Any seeming relief will be fleeting and the long-range consequences will make future resistance even more difficult, possibly escalating into an addiction."

---

"We stand at a threshold – either we can continue to allow this plague to spread with fewer and fewer checks, or we can take concrete steps to uproot it in our lives, our families, our neighborhoods and our culture.

We are a people called to share in the pure and noble vision of God and His creation. We are also a people whose future glory has been bought with the precious sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. We must never forget the high cost of this purchase."
(Read More)

Why the Church refuses the Eucharist to non-Catholics

A cousin of mine recently called to tell me about a conversation he had with a non-Catholic friend about this topic. Things did not go as well as he would have liked, even though he has a decent handle on the reasons. This was probably one of the questions that I was asked the most when I was working with the RCIA program at Saint Brigid. It usually went something like, "Why can’t non-Catholics¹ receive communion in the Catholic Church? Do Catholics think they are better than everyone else?" As Catholics we need to step back and realize that these are reasonable questions. Most people who ask you this have no idea what the Church teaches that communion is. It is important to remember that the Catholic Church always has good reasons for what she does. She is not in the business of being mean or haughty. Her reasons are always biblically and logically sound.

Sometimes when you are confronted with a question like this it catches you off guard. Especially when it is accompanied with a comment about how this teaching of the Church seems stupid or mean. It is important to always say a quick prayer for the person and for yourself. That God would open their heart to the truth and that you will be given the grace to tell it to them in charity.

The first thing that the non-Catholic needs to understand is what, or more correctly stated, who the Eucharist is. The Catholic Church teaches that at the words of consecration, the bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Only the appearances of the bread and wine remain. Biblically the Church receives this truth from a few places. In the Gospel of Saint John our Lord states it as plain as it can be stated, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.”² And again at the Last Supper he holds up what appear to be the bread and the wine and says, “This is my body…This is my blood.”³

Receiving communion brings you into union with Christ. The Church is Christ’s body and disunity with his body is a very serious situation. It is his Church, he built her and sustains her as the head. Saint Paul tells us, “The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”⁴ Those who have left Christ’s body or have never entered it cannot receive communion, because they are not in unity with his body.

A Catholic, who did not understand why the Church would refuse non-Catholics, once said when a group was discussing this topic, “The Church is not a fraternity.” I suppose he meant that the Church is not some exclusivist club. In one sense he is correct. The Church is catholic, which means she is universal. She is available to all men, of all races, in all times. In another sense he is dead wrong. The Church being available to all does not mean all avail of her. This means she must, as far as possible, make sure her Lord is not profaned and to those who come forward to receive, that they are not heaping judgment upon themselves. This is not some silly ritual, it can even be a matter of life or death.

Saint Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, puts it this way, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”⁵ Anyone who comes forward in an unworthy manner profanes the body and blood of the Lord. This is serious business, especially to anyone who calls Christ their Lord. The Catholic Church teaches that you must be a baptized Christian and in a state of sanctifying grace to receive communion. This is the very basic minimum requirement. This would be coming forward in a worthy manner. For those who, after examining their conscience find they are in a state of mortal sin, communion, in all but the rarest of cases (i.e. danger of death with perfect contrition, etc.), is not possible.⁶ For those who are not baptized it is simply forbidden.

Saint Paul continues, “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”⁷ Those who come forward to receive who do not believe that they are receiving Jesus are eating and drinking judgment upon themselves. What is this judgment? “That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”⁸ Saint Paul is speaking with the greatest urgency. Sickness and death can be the result of this. Not only physical, but spiritual also; as you have denied your Lord’s presence while still receiving him. I do not think there is any way to overstate the gravity of the situation as Saint Paul presents it to us. Doing this can cause your death. If nothing else moves someone, for those who take Scripture seriously, this is quite the wake-up call.

As you can see the Church has very good reasons for not allowing non-Catholics to receive. If we think about the reasons given above for a moment, it does not seem like such a bad thing to limit people who the Church knows (i.e. non-Catholics) do not fulfill these obligations from receiving the Eucharist. Another Catholic in the same previously mentioned discussion group said, “It isn't like all the Catholics are fulfilling the obligations either.” While that may be true, the difference is that from all outward appearances Catholics do fulfill these obligations. Non-Catholics, generally, either do not believe that the Body and Blood are really present, or do not confess their sins to a validly ordained priest (i.e. someone who has the authority to forgive sin.) They therefore can be kept from the Eucharist on those facts alone. The Church trusts her own members to obey these obligations and since to be Catholic they must believe in transubstantiation and are required to confess mortal sin, she must trust them.⁹

---

All Scripture quotations taken from the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition.

Footnotes

[1] Non-Catholics except those stated in CIC 844 §3- “Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.” ^
[2] John 6:55 (Please read the whole discourse to see how emphatically our Lord stresses the truth of the matter - John 6:22-71) ^
[3] Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 ^
[4] 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 ^
[5] 1 Corinthians 11:27-28 ^
[6] CIC 916 - “A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to…receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.” ^
[7] 1 Corinthians 11:29 ^
[8] 1 Corinthians 11:30 ^
[9] There are exceptions of course, as listed in CIC 915 - "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion." ^
(Read More)