Waiting In Joyful Hope

Bishop Thomas Tobin Responds to Congressman Patrick Kennedy

2009-11-10T11:36:00.006-05:00

His Excellency, Most Rev. Thomas J. Tobin, Bishop of Providence responds to Congressman Patrick Kennedy's statement that, "The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic." By respond, I mean, he lays out in a clear and powerfully direct fashion exactly what being Catholic means.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.
Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

This is how every Bishop should approach those politicians who want to claim their Catholicism in the Public Square and yet just as publically deny their Catholicism by the legislation they support or oppose. Lay it all out there in the hopes of the person's conversion and return to Christ's Body, his holy Catholic Church.

Read the full text of His Excellency's letter here.

The Mathematical Consequences of Contraception

2009-10-26T20:31:00.015-04:00

Let's use a mathematical argument in regards to the use of contraception.

Let's use a simple equation that argues for two married people becoming one flesh: a + b = c.

Let's use a simple equation that argues for two married people not becoming one flesh by contracepting so that they stay one: a + b = a. (It could also be a + b = b, but the first will be used in these examples.)

Finally, let's use some different properties of math to flesh this out.

Using the Reflexive Property of Equality
We find that a = a
and that b = b
and that c = c

Using the Symmetrical Property of Equality
We find that if a = me then me = a
and that if b = you then you = b
and that if c = me + you then me + you = c

Using the Substitution Property
We find that if a = me, then me can replace a in any equation
and that if b = you, then you can replace b in any equation
and that if c = me + you, then me + you can replace c in any equation

Using our new values the original equations come out to the following:
(a + b = c) is me + you = me + you
(a + b = a) is me + you = me

As you can see the first equation mathematically makes sense no matter what the values of a/me or b/you are. The second equation is a little trickier. Let’s try some more math to see if we can have it work out.

In order for the second equation to be true, we must use another property.

Using the Additive Identity Property
We find that a + 0 = a

Applying this property to the original equation (a + b = a) we find that b = 0.

Using the Transitive Property of Equality
We find that if you = b and b = 0, then you = 0

So we find that in order for contraception to be added into the mix and for the original equation to be mathematically true, either a or b must become zero. Either me or you must become nothing. The only way that I can have sex with you and use contraception (i.e. not join myself to you) is for you to be nothing to me.

Ecclesia Semper Reformanda

2009-10-16T10:32:00.008-04:00

The Bishop of Sioux City, the Most Reverend R. Walker Nickless has written his first pastoral letter to his diocese, called Ecclesia Semper Reformanda (The Church is Always in Need of Renewal).

It is an excellent letter explaining where we have been for the last four decades and why the so-called "spirit" of Vatican II is not a correct intepretation of the council. He closes with very concrete ways we can change what we as Catholics have become in our witness to the world. I have included some of the many relevant passages (with my emphases in bold):

"We now find ourselves forty-four years since the close of the Council. Many questions still need to be asked and answered. Have we understood the Council within the context of the entire history of the Church? Have we understood the documents well? Have we truly appropriated and implemented them? Is the current state of the Church what the Council intended? What went right? What went wrong? Where is the promised “New Pentecost”?"

Quoting Pope Benedict XVI who says,
On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform,” of renewal in the continuity of the one subject – Church – which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.
Bishop Nickless reflects, "It is crucial that we all grasp that the hermeneutic or interpretation of discontinuity or rupture, which many think is the settled and even official position, is not the true meaning of the Council. This interpretation sees the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church almost as two different churches. It sees the Second Vatican Council as a radical break with the past. There can be no split, however, between the Church and her faith before and after the Council. We must stop speaking of the “Pre-Vatican II” and “Post-Vatican II” Church, and stop seeing various characteristics of the Church as “pre” and “post” Vatican II. Instead, we must evaluate them according to their intrinsic value and pastoral effectiveness in this day and age.

Therefore, we must heed the Holy Father’s point that one interpretation, the “hermeneutic of reform,” is valid, and has borne and is bearing fruit. This hermeneutic of reform, as described above, takes seriously and keeps together the two poles of identity (the ancient deposit of faith and life) and engagement with the world (teaching it more efficaciously).

Lastly, the Holy Father, going into greater detail later in the address, explains that the “spirit of Vatican II” must be found only in the letter of the documents themselves. The so-called “spirit” of the Council has no authoritative interpretation. It is a ghost or demon that must be exorcised if we are to proceed with the Lord’s work."

"My brothers and sisters, let me say this clearly: The “hermeneutic of discontinuity” is a false interpretation and implementation of the Council and the Catholic Faith. It emphasizes the “engagement with the world” to the exclusion of the deposit of faith. This has wreaked havoc on the Church, systematically dismantling the Catholic Faith to please the world, watering down what is distinctively Catholic, and ironically becoming completely irrelevant and impotent for the mission of the Church in the world. The Church that seeks simply what works or is “useful” in the end becomes useless.

Our urgent need at this time is to reclaim and strengthen our understanding of the deposit of faith. We must have a distinctive identity and culture as Catholics, if we would effectively communicate the Gospel to the people of this day and Diocese. This is our mission...We cannot give what we do not have; we cannot fulfill our mission to evangelize, if we ourselves are not evangelized."

His plan to implement this “hermeneutic of reform" is five-fold:
1. We must renew our reverence, love, adoration and devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament, within and outside of Mass. A renewal of Eucharistic Spirituality necessarily entails an ongoing implementation of the Second Vatican Council’s reform of the liturgy as authoritatively taught by the Church’s Magisterium, the promotion of Eucharistic Adoration outside of Mass, regular reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of the Eucharist and our Mother.
2. We must strengthen catechesis on every level, beginning with and focusing on adults. If we, who are supposed to be mature in faith, do not know the Catholic Faith well, how can we live it and impart it to our children and future generations of Catholics?
3. The first two pastoral priorities, renewal in Eucharistic Spirituality and Catechesis, will foster faithful families that are the foundation of the Church and the society. We are called to protect, build up and foster holy families in our midst, without whom the Church and the world perish.
4. If we renew the Eucharistic, catechetical, and family life of our diocese, we will simultaneously foster a culture where young people can more readily respond to the radical calls of ministerial priesthood and the consecrated life.
5. We must acknowledge and embrace the missionary character of the Catholic Faith and the vocation of all Catholics to be, not only disciples, but also apostles.

In closing his excellency says, "We truly need today those “great acts of renunciation” for the sake of Christ: not so much renunciation of our material things, as of our false attachments to both material and spiritual things. In order to strengthen our devotion to Christ in the Holy Eucharist and worship God rightly, we need to renounce any attachment to how we worship currently. To improve the spiritual depth of how we perform the Church’s liturgy, we will need to renounce attachment to worldly expectations and long-standing habits. To spend more time adoring Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, we need to renounce attachment to how we currently use our time. To deepen our intimate love for God in our hearts and heads, we need to renounce attachment to whatever is not God that is filling our hearts and heads. To live in more intentional and holy Catholic families, we need to renounce attachment to distractions, sins, and imperfections that harm our domestic churches. To accept the divine plan God has for each of us, we need to renounce attachment to our own plans. To change the world for Christ, we need to renounce attachment to how we want the world to be for ourselves."

Please, if you have time, read it in its entirety here.

Indulgences

2009-10-07T17:14:00.009-04:00

Out of all the things that the Catholic Church teaches, indulgences are possibly the most misunderstood. I think it is safe to say that statement would include most Catholics. If you are one of those Catholics, it doesn't have to be that way. First things first...definitions.

Indulgences

An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.¹

What an Indulgence Is Not

To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject...²

So where is the definition of the definitions? If there are some words in there that you are not very familiar with, do not worry, we will get to them. To properly understand what the Church teaches about indulgences we only need to understand a few simple concepts.

The Two Consequences of Sin

Grave, or mortal, sin has two consequences; the first, which is called eternal punishment, and the second, which is called temporal punishment. The eternal punishment of sin is hell or an eternal deprivation of communion with our Creator. Eternal punishment is only a consequence of mortal sin. It is not a consequence of venial sin. "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."³ In other words it is a serious matter, you know it, and you freely choose to do it anyway. A sin is venial when at least one of the three conditions for mortal sin are missing. Temporal punishment is a consequence of both mortal and venial sin. Temporal punishment is a consequence that takes place in time. It is not eternal in nature, hence the name.

The Tale of Two Brothers

At this point an example might make things clearer. You and your brother like to play catch after school and every day you come home and go outside and throw the ball back and forth. You do it outside because your parents have told you that you are not allowed to do it inside. This particular day it is raining outside and instead of doing something else you decide to throw the ball around inside the house and end up breaking a window. In true sorrow and repentance you both confess to your parents what you have done when they come home and they forgive your disobedience towards them. Just as your parents have restored you and your brother to your previous place in the family, so does God restore us when we repent of our sins in true sorrow and confession. The theological term for this is justification. The normative way that man is justified by God is in baptism. If following baptism man separates himself from God through mortal sin he can be re-justified by God in in reconciliation. Justification is not what is going on with indulgences. When we are made just (or justified) our eternal punishment, that eternal separation from God, has been removed.

There are some people who would say that everything is good now. You are just in the eyes of God and if you were to die you would go to heaven. Well, almost. You might notice that it is still a bit breezy in here. There are some other things that resulted from your little foray into disobedience. The most obvious is that the window is still broken. That is an example of the temporal consequences of our sin. There are many other temporal consequences that might not be so obvious. There is the bad example we have set for our younger brother who we convinced to join us in the disobedience of our parents. There is the resultant lack of trust that our parents will have in us when we are home without them there to supervise us. There is the predisposition to commit this sin again because the more we indulge in disobedience the more likely it is to become a habit, etc., etc. The list goes on and on. As you can see our sins affect us and others in many different ways. These are just some of the ways that we can readily think of. Imagine the ones that we have no idea are going on.

The Treasury of Merit and the Keys to the Kingdom

Let's say the window is going to cost $100 to fix. You do not have any money because the unemployment rate for 12 year olds is pretty high. Since you do not have a job and it has been quite awhile since you spent the last of your birthday money, you are in quite the pickle. Although you desire to fix the window, you have not covered that in shop class yet and your piggy bank is completely empty. What is a boy to do? You ask your parents for help of course. They tell you that they recognize your desire to repair the window and would like to help you and your brother earn enough to fix it. They tell you that you can mow the lawn and earn $10 towards fixing the window. You could also help dad this Saturday rip out the old deck and install a new one to pay off the whole $100.

It is the same way with us when we sin. The Church, thanks to the infinite merit of Jesus Christ, has a vast, limitless treasury of merit that she has access to. Because our Lord granted Saint Peter (and his successors) the keys to the kingdom and the powers to bind and loose, the Church is able to give us ways to make satisfaction for our temporal debts. Even when we are forgiven of the eternal punishment due to our mortal sin by God's grace and through repentance, contrition, and confession, we still have the temporal consequences of it to deal with. The Church, through her access to Christ's infinite merit, attaches an indulgence to a particular pious act. In this way the penitent can really pay for the temporal consequences which he may have no earthly way of perceiving or simply cannot repair. The Church offers us two different kinds of indulgences. They are either partial (as in the $10 example above) or plenary (as in the $100 example).

Just as we can benefit from receiving from this treasury of merit, we can also contribute to it. As Christians united to Jesus Christ, acting in and by his grace, our good works, penances, and sufferings are also added to this treasury. Although the treasury is already infinite our additions are real because they are acquired through the merits of Jesus Christ.

The benefits of an indulgence may also be applied to those who are in Purgatory. Continuing the previous example, if the younger brother were to have died without having made restitution, the older brother could mow the lawn and use those benefits, the $10, to pay his brother's part of the debt.

Indulgences are consistent with both God's mercy and his justice, because he allows us to unite ourselves to him through Jesus Christ whose satisfaction to the Father more than fulfills the indebtedness man has caused by his sin. Indulgences are a wonderful gift to every Christian. We will be called to account for all the temporal consequences of our sin, in this life or in the next. As Saint Augustine tells us:

But temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporal punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come.⁴

Purchase the Handbook of Indulgences now from amazon.com!

Archbishop Chaput - "St. Paul in the Public Square"

2009-08-07T09:00:00.001-04:00

In the June/July 2009 issue of First Things Archbishop Chaput of Denver lays out the state of Catholicism in the U.S. and then uses Saint Paul as an example of how we should be engaging the culture. As always Archbishop Chaput does not mince any words. Here are four examples:

The November election showed us that forty years of American Catholic complacency and poor formation are bearing fruit.
If 65 million Catholics really cared about their faith and cared about what it teaches, neither political party could ignore what we believe about justice for the poor, or the homeless, or immigrants, or the unborn. If 65 million American Catholics really understood their faith, we wouldn't need to waste one another's time arguing whether the legalized killing of an unborn child is somehow balanced out or excused by other social policies.
If we learn nothing else from last November, it should be this: We need to stop overcounting our numbers, our influence, our institutions, and our resources, because they are not real. We cannot talk about following St. Paul and converting our culture until we sober up and admit what we've allowed ourselves to become. We need to stop lying to each other, to ourselves, and to God by claiming to oppose personally some homicidal evil - and allowing it to be legal at the same time.
We've forgotten how to think, especially how to think as Catholics. We have to make ourselves stupid to believe some of the things American Catholics are now expected to accept. There is nothing more empty-headed in a pluralist democracy than telling citizens to keep quiet about their beliefs. A healthy democracy requires exactly the opposite. Democracy requires a vigorous public struggle of convictions and ideas. And the convictions of some people always get imposed on everybody else. That's the nature of a democracy. So why should faithful Catholics play by different rules and a misguided sense of good manners?

God bless Archbishop Chaput. See the full piece here.

Archbishop Burke's Keynote Address at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

2009-05-09T00:06:00.008-04:00

Please pray for the good Archbishop Burke. They will be coming after him full throttle now...They know that now that he is the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura that what he says has wider implications then when he was 'just' the Archbishop of Saint Louis.

Be warned this is very long, but well worth your time.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS OF

THE MOST REVEREND RAYMOND LEO BURKE, D.D., J.C.D.

ARCHBISHOP-EMERITUS OF SAINT LOUIS

PREFECT OF THE SUPREME TRIBUNAL OF THE APOSTOLIC SIGNATURA

NATIONAL CATHOLIC PRAYER BREAKFAST

"CELEBRATION OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH"

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MAY 8, 2009

Introduction

1. I am deeply honored to give the Keynote Address at this annual gathering of Catholics to pray for our nation. I express my heartfelt esteem and gratitude to those who, each year, organize and support the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

2. The theme of this year's Breakfast is most fitting to the difficult time through which our nation is now passing. Before the fundamental and great challenges which we as a nation are facing, how better to express our patriotism than by celebrating the teachings of our Catholic faith. The most treasured gift which we as citizens of the United States of America can offer to our country is a faithful Catholic life. It is the gift which, even though it has often been misunderstood, has brought great strength to our nation, from the time of its founding. Today more than ever, our nation is in need of Catholics who know their faith deeply and express their faith, with integrity, by their daily living.

3. Although I no longer have my residence in our beloved nation, I am no less bound to practice the virtue of patriotism, taught and exemplified by Our Lord during His public ministry. It is Our Lord Who gives us, in the Church, the grace to practice patriotism as a fundamental expression of the bond of charity which we have, in Him, with our fellow citizens. From my earliest formation in the life of the faith, received at home from my parents and in the Catholic schools, it was clear to me that duty to one's nation, to one's fellow citizens, is integral to our life in Christ in the Church. In the Baltimore Catechism, the virtue of patriotism is joined with filial piety. These essentially connected virtues, in the words of the Catechism, dispose us to honor, love and respect our parents and our country (Revised Baltimore Catechism and Mass, No. 3, New York: Benziger Brothers, Inc., 1949, 1952, no. 135). Surely, the most fundamental expression of patriotism is daily prayer for our homeland, the United States of America, her citizens and her leaders. Our participation in the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast is, I trust, an extraordinary expression of the daily prayer which we all offer for our country, as good Catholics and, therefore, good citizens.

4. It pleases me that today's celebration included a presentation by Mother Shaun Vergauwen, Superior General of the Franciscan Sisters of the Eucharist. I have known Mother Shaun's religious congregation for all the years of my priestly life. The consecrated life of the Franciscan Sisters of the Eucharist is an inspired witness to the truths of our Catholic faith, especially what pertains to the Gospel of Life, and, therefore, also makes a strong contribution to the good of all citizens in our nation.

Growing Crisis in Our Nation

5. I come to you, this morning, with the deepest concern for our nation. I come to you, not as someone who stands outside of our nation but as a citizen who, with you as fellow citizens, takes responsibility for the state of our nation and, therefore, cannot remain indifferent and inactive about what most concerns the good of us all, especially those among us who are small, weak and defenseless.

6. Over the past several months, our nation has chosen a path which more completely denies any legal guarantee of the most fundamental human right, the right to life, to the innocent and defenseless unborn. Our nation, which had its beginning in the commitment to safeguard and promote the inalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" for all, without boundary, is more and more setting arbitrary limits to her commitment (cf. The Declaration of Independence: Action of Second Continental Congress, 4 July 1776, in The Constitution of the United States with the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2002, p. 81). Those in power now determine who will or will not be accorded the legal protection of the most fundamental right to life. First the legal protection of the right to life is denied to the unborn and, then, to those whose lives have become burdened by advanced years, special needs or serious illness, or whose lives are somehow judged to be unprofitable or unworthy.

7. What is more, those in power propose to force physicians and other healthcare professionals, in other words, those with a particular responsibility to protect and foster human life, to participate, contrary to what their conscience requires, in the destruction of unborn human lives, from the first or embryonic stage of development to the moment of birth. Our laws may soon force those who have dedicated themselves to the care of the sick and the promotion of good health to give up their noble life work, in order to be true to the most sacred dictate of their consciences. What is more, if our nation continues down the path it has taken, healthcare institutions operating in accord with the natural moral law, which teaches us that innocent human life is to be protected and fostered at all times and that it is always and everywhere evil to destroy an innocent human life, will be forced to close their doors.

8. At the same time, the fundamental society, that is, the family, upon which the life of our nation is founded and depends, is under attack by legislation which redefines marriage to include a relationship between two persons of the same sex and permits them to adopt children. In the same line, it is proposed to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. At the root of the confusion and error about marriage is the contraceptive mentality - which would have us believe that the inherently procreative nature of the conjugal union can, in practice, be mechanically or chemically eliminated, while the marital act remains unitive. It cannot be so. With unparalleled arrogance, our nation is choosing to renounce its foundation upon the faithful, indissoluble, and inherently procreative love of a man and a woman in marriage, and, in violation of what nature itself teaches us, to replace it with a so-called marital relationship, according to the definition of those who exercise the greatest power in our society.

9. The path of violation of the most fundamental human rights and of the integrity of marriage and the family, which our nation is traveling, is not accidental. It is part of the program set forth by those whom we have freely chosen to lead our nation. The part of the program in question was not unknown to us; it was announced to us beforehand and a majority of our fellow citizens, including a majority of our fellow Catholics, chose the leadership which is now implementing it with determination. For example, I refer to our President's declared support of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would make illegal any legislation restricting procured abortion; his repeal of the Mexico City Policy, permitting U.S. funding of procured abortion in other nations, together with the grant of fifty million dollars to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities which, for example, supported the Republic of China's policy of one child per family by means of government-dictated sterilization and abortion; his proposal to rescind the regulations appended to the federal Conscience Clause, which assure that, not only physicians, but also all health-care workers may refuse to provide services, information or counsel to patients regarding medications and procedures which are contrary to their conscience; his removal of limitations on federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research, involving the wholesale destruction of human life at the embryonic stage of development; and his choice of the members of his administration, who are remarkable for the number of major officials, including several Catholics, who favor the denial of the right to life to the unborn and the violation of the integrity of marriage and the family. These are only some examples of a consistent pattern of decisions by the leadership of our nation which is taking our nation down a path which denies the fundamental right to life to the innocent and defenseless unborn and violates the fundamental integrity of the marital union and the family.

10. As Catholics, we cannot fail to note, with the greatest sadness, the number of our fellow Catholics, elected or appointed by our President to public office, who cooperate fully in the advancement of a national agenda was is anti-life and anti-family. Most recently, the appointment of a Catholic as Secretary of Health and Human Services, who has openly and persistently cooperated with the industry of procured abortion in our nation, is necessarily a source of the deepest embarrassment to Catholics and a painful reminder of the most serious responsibility of Catholics to uphold the natural moral law, which is the irreplaceable foundation of just relationships among the citizens of our nation. It grieves me to say that the support of anti-life legislation by Catholics in public office is so common that those who are not Catholic have justifiably questioned whether the Church's teaching regarding the inviolable dignity of innocent human life is firm and unchanging. It gives the impression that the Church herself can change the law which God has written on every human heart from the beginning of time and has declared in the Fifth Commandment of the Decalogue: Thou shalt not kill.

11. As is clear, the anti-life and anti-family path down which our nation is being led has repercussions for many other peoples who rely upon the United States for aid or who are influenced by the international policies upon which our nation insists. The interest of so many nations in our recent presidential election is a clear sign of the world leadership which our national leadership exercises. What those who were so enthused about the strong message of change and hope in the United States, delivered during the last election campaign, are now discovering is a consistent implementation of policies and programs which confirm and advance the culture of death, which can only finally leave our world without the great hope, described by our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI in these words:

Let us say once again: we need the greater and lesser hopes that keep us going day by day. But these are not enough without the great hope, which must surpass everything else. This great hope can only be God, who encompasses the whole of reality and who can bestow upon us what we, by ourselves, cannot attain. The fact that it comes to us as a gift is actually part of hope. God is the foundation of hope: not any god, but the God who has a human face and who has loved us to the end, each one of us and humanity in its entirety. His Kingdom is not an imaginary hereafter, situated in a future that will never arrive; his Kingdom is present wherever he is loved and wherever his love reaches us.

His love alone gives us the possibility of soberly persevering day by day, without ceasing to be spurred on by hope, in a world which by its very nature is imperfect. His love is at the same time our guarantee of the existence of what we only vaguely sense and which nevertheless, in our deepest self, we await: a life that is truly life (Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Spe salvi, On Christian Hope, 30 November 2007, Acta Apostolicae Sedis no. 31).

The change which brings hope can only be the renewal of our nation in the divine love which respects the inviolable dignity of every human life, from the moment of its inception to the moment of natural death, and which creates and gives growth to new human life through the love of man and woman in marriage. Any hope which is incoherent with the great hope is truly illusory and can never bring forth justice and its fruit, peace, for our nation and world.

Addressing the Crisis

12. How can we as Catholics address effectively the critical situation of our nation in what pertains to the fundamental right to life and the integrity of the family? What does the virtue of patriotism, together with all of the virtues inspired by the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, require of us for the common good, for the good of the whole nation? First and foremost, it demands what we are doing this morning, that is, prayer, and the serious reflection which arises from our communion with God in prayer.

13. When Our Lord descended from the Mount of the Transfiguration, he found that his disciples had tried, without success, to help a boy afflicted by an unclean spirit. Our Lord then cast out the unclean spirit, prompting his disciples, when they were alone with Him, to ask why they had been unable to free the boy from his affliction. Our Lord responded with these words: This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer and fasting (Mk 9:29). Our Lord reminded them that the good which they wished to accomplish in the face of great evil could only be attained through prayer and fasting. In other words, evil cannot be overcome by our own forces alone, but by the grace of God which inspires and strengthens our thoughts and actions. It is Christ alone who has accomplished the victory over sin and its most evil fruit, eternal death, and it is Christ alone, in the Church, who continues to bring forth the fruits of His victory in our lives and in our world.

14. In the battle for the protection of the right to life and for the safeguarding of the integrity of marriage and the family in our nation, we are easily tempted to give way to discouragement. And it would be right to do so, if the outcome of the battle depended upon us alone. But it does not. Christ is with us always in the Church and, in a particular way, in the struggle to restore the respect for the right to life of all of our brothers and sisters, especially those who are helpless and who have the first title to our care, and to safeguard the integrity of marriage and the family. Christ Who is the Gospel of Life, encountered in prayer and through the Sacraments, will give us the strength to announce His word of life and to act upon His word of life, on behalf of all in our nation, especially those who depend upon us to care for them and protect their God-given rights.

15. If we are serious about our patriotic duty, then we must pray everyday for our leaders, especially our President, and our nation. We should also practice more fervently our fasting and abstinence for the conversion of our lives and the transformation of our society. If we want to act for the common good, the good of all, in our nation, then we will seek to convert our lives each day to Christ, especially through the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist. Christ desires to announce the Gospel of Life and bring about its saving effects in our nation by the complete conversion of our lives to Him for the sake of all our brothers and sisters, without boundary, and for the sake of the preservation of the sanctuary of human life, marriage and the family.

16. At various times of great crisis in our nation and in the world, the Holy Father and our Bishops have called upon all Catholics to offer special prayers for the nation and for the world. I recall so well, from my youth, the Leonine Prayers offered at the conclusion of every Mass to address the growing threat of atheistic materialism in our world. Remember, too, how Pope Saint Pius V, in 1571, called upon the whole Church to pray, especially through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, when the Christian world was under attack by the Turks. After the victory of the Battle of Lepanto, on October 7, 1571, he established October 7th as an annual feast in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary and introduced the title of Mary Help of Christians into the Litany of Loreto. In the present crisis, praying daily the Rosary for our nation and invoking daily the intercession of Mary Help of Christians will be powerful forces for the victory of life and love.

17. At every Mass, we should offer special prayers for our nation and her leaders, in order that the culture of death may be overcome and a civilization of love may be steadfastly advanced. All Catholics throughout the nation should take part in Eucharistic adoration and in the praying of the Rosary for the restoration of the respect for human life and for the safeguarding of the integrity of the family. In our prayers, we should seek, above all, the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, under her title of the Immaculate Conception. Mary Immaculate is the patroness of our nation. In a most wonderful way, she appeared, on our continent, in what is present-day Mexico City, in 1531, as the Immaculate Mother of God, in order to manifest the all-merciful love of God toward His children of America. Through her example and intercession, the Native Americans and Europeans, who were on the brink of a most deadly conflict, were brought together to form one people under her maternal care, and the widespread practice of human sacrifice among the native people was brought to an end. In our time, in many parishes and dioceses there are campaigns of prayer for our nation and her leaders. May these powerful spiritual works continue and prosper, so that, through prayer and fasting, the grave evils of contraception, procured abortion, euthanasia, the experimentation on embryonic human life, and so-called same-sex marriage may be overcome in our nation.

18. Connected with our prayer must be the thoughtful and faithful reflection upon the Church's teaching on the respect for all human life and the integrity of the family. In our homes, in our Catholic schools and universities, in parish study groups, and in everyday conversations and discussions with our neighbors, we are called to give an uncompromising witness to the Gospel of Life. Parents, parish priests and institutions of Catholic education must be aware of the constant anti-life and anti-family messages which constantly bombard us and our young people. One has only to think, for example, of the corruption of the goodness of our youth by the multi-million dollar industry of pornography, especially on the Internet. Our reflection as individuals and groups must open our eyes to the gravity of the situation in our nation, lest we fail to take responsibility for the widespread attacks on human life and the family. Our reflection must help us all and, in a particular way, our young people to see the godless secularism and relativism which underly and justify our nation's anti-life and anti-family programs, policies and laws.

19. Our encounter with the world must be clear and uncompromising. Parents must reflect in their daily living the lifelong and rich fruit of the Gospel of Life, which they are called to teach to their children. Catholic educational institutions must devote themselves ever more strenuously to the study of the truths of the faith, addressing them to the moral challenges of our time. In a culture marked by widespread and grave confusion and error about the most fundamental teachings of the moral law, our Catholic schools and universities must be beacons of truth and right conduct. Clearly, the same is true of our Catholic charitable, missionary and healthcare institutions. There can be no place in them for teaching or activities which offend the moral law. Dialogue and respect for differences are not promoted by the compromise and even violation of the natural moral law. The profound granting of an honorary doctorate at Notre Dame University to our President who is as aggressively advancing an anti-life and anti-family agenda is a source of the gravest scandal. Catholic institutions cannot offer any platform to, let alone honor, those who teach and act publicly against the moral law. In a culture which embraces an agenda of death, Catholics and Catholic institutions are necessarily counter-cultural. If we as individuals or our Catholic institutions are not willing to accept the burdens and the suffering necessarily involved in calling our culture to reform, then we are not worthy of the name Catholic.

Catholics and Public Life

20. Our prayer and conversion of life, and the serious reflection upon and study of the truths of the moral life, both as individuals and in our Catholic institutions, require that we accept our responsibility as citizens to work tirelessly to change unjust programs, policies and laws. In a nation set so firmly on a path of violation of the most fundamental moral norms, Catholics and others who adhere to the natural moral law are pressured to think that their religious commitment to the moral law as the way of seeking the good of all is a merely confessional matter which cannot have any application in public life. Apparently, a number of Catholics in public life have been so convinced. How often do we hear Catholic legislators who vote in favor of anti-life and anti-family legislation claim that they are personally opposed to what the legislation protects and fosters, but that they as public officials may not allow religious beliefs to affect their support of such legislation? How often do we hear fellow Catholics supporting candidates for office, who are anti-life and anti-family, because of political-party loyalties or for reasons of other policies and programs supported by the candidate, which they deem to be good? How often is such thinking justified by the claim that religious faith is a purely private matter and has no place in the public forum? On the contrary, the common good depends upon the active engagement of religious faith in the public forum.

21. Addressing the role of the Church in the political order, Pope Benedict XVI reminds us:

It must not be forgotten that, when Churches or ecclesial communities intervene in public debate, expressing reservations or recalling various principles, this does not constitute a form of intolerance or interference, since such interventions are aimed solely at enlightening consciences, enabling them to act freely and responsibly, according to the true demands of justice, even when this should conflict with situations of power and personal interest (Pope Benedict XVI, Ad Congressum a Populari Europae Faction provectum, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 98 [2006], 344)."

In his Encyclical Letter Deus caritas est, our Holy Father reminded us of the great gift of our faith which enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly (Pope Benedict XVI, Encylical Letter Deus caritas est , On Christian Love, 25 December 2005, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 98 [2006], 239, no. 28). When the Church addresses her social teaching to issues of the common good, she has no intention of giving the Church power over the State or to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith (Deus caritas est, no. 28). Her aim, which is our aim as patriotic Catholics, is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just (Deus caritas est, no. 28). In addressing the critical issues of our nation, the Church and we, as her faithful sons and daughters, intervene on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being (Deus caritas est, no. 28).

22. Our uncompromising commitment to protect the inviolable dignity of innocent human life and to safeguard the integrity of marriage and the family are not based on peculiar confessional beliefs or practices but on the natural moral law, written on every heart and, therefore, a fundamental part of the Church's moral teaching. At the same time, what is always and everywhere evil cannot be called good for the sake of accomplishing some other good end. All of us must be concerned about a wide range of goods which are important to the life of our nation, but the concern for those goods can never justify the betrayal of the fundamental goods of life itself and the family. We must take care to uproot from our moral thinking any form of relativism, consequentialism and proportionalism, which would lead us into the error of thinking that it is sometimes right to do what is always and everywhere evil.

23. An important part of our moral reflection must include a clear understanding of the principles regarding cooperation in evil, especially by the act of voting. Too often, in our time, our inability to accomplish all that we should for the sake of the defense of the right to life and of the protection of the integrity of the family is used to justify the direct choice of a political leader who espouses a position or positions in violation of the natural moral law. The Servant of God Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, addresses at length the question of cooperation in evil which violates the dignity of innocent human life. He offers as an example the case of a legislator who has the possibility of voting for a law which would restrict the evil of procured abortion, even though it would not eradicate it completely. He concludes that the legislator could vote for the legislation, while his own opposition to procured abortion remains clear, for his vote does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects (Pope John Paul II, Encylical Letter Evangelium vitae , On the Good and Inviolability of Human Life, 25 March 1995, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 87 [1995], 487, no. 73). In an analogous manner, as voters, we are often faced with a choice among candidates who do not fully oppose unjust laws. In such a case, we must choose the candidate who will most limit the evil effects of unjust laws. But, there is no element of the common good, no morally good practice, which a candidate may promote and to which a voter may be dedicated, which could justify voting for a candidate who also endorses and supports the deliberate killing of the unborn, euthanasia or the recognition of a same-sex relationship as a legal marriage. The respect for the inviolable dignity of innocent human life and for the integrity of marriage and the family are so fundamental to the common good that they cannot be subordinated to any other cause, no matter how good it may be.

24. In the present situation of our nation, a serious question has arisen about the moral obligation of Catholics to work for the overturning of the Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. There are those who would tell us that such work is futile and, therefore, is to be abandoned, so that we can devote ourselves to help prevent individuals from choosing abortion. As Catholics, we can never cease to work for the correction of gravely unjust laws. Law is a fundamental expression of our culture and implicitly teaches citizens what is morally acceptable. Our efforts to assist those who are tempted to do what is always and everywhere wrong or are suffering from the effects of having committed a gravely immoral act, which are essential expressions of the charity which unites us as citizens of the nation, ultimately make little sense, if we remain idle regarding unjust laws and decisions of the courts regarding the same intrinsic evils. We are never justified in abandoning the work of changing legislation and of reversing decisions of the courts which are anti-life and anti-family.

Conclusion

25. As we gather this morning to pray for our nation, let us draw courage and strength from the glorious pierced Heart of Our Lord Jesus. Let us not give way to discouragement in our exercise of patriotism but rather be confident of the essential contribution which our Catholic faith makes to the life of our nation.

26. May the courage and strength which comes to us from the Sacred Heart of Jesus enlighten our minds to see more clearly the gravity of the situation of our nation and inflame our hearts to do our part to transform the life of our nation, in accord with the natural moral law, that is, with what is just and serves the good of all. Let us draw courage and strength from the Sacred Heart of Jesus through prayer and the Sacraments, especially the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist. May the courage and strength of Christ guide our reflection on the state of our nation and lead us to that just action, taught to us by our faith, which serves the good of all.

27. Invoking the intercession of Mary Immaculate, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mother of America, let us pray today and everyday that we as Catholics, true to our faith and, therefore, patriotically devoted to our nation, may promote respect for all human life, safeguard the sanctity of marriage and the family, and, thereby, foster the good of all in the nation and in the world.

Thank you. God bless you.

Twelve Tribes of Israel

2008-07-18T17:00:00.005-04:00

A co-worker of mine brought this to my attention and I have since spent way too much time looking it over.

The question is this...Who exactly are the twelve tribes of Israel. Jacob (aka Israel) has 12 sons. Each son is listed as he is born in Genesis chapters 29, 30, 35. Also in chapter 35 we have a listing of the sons grouped according to their mother. The list is as follows:

Leah
Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun

Rachel
Joseph and Benjamin

Bilhah (Rachel's Maid)
Dan and Naphtali

Zilpah (Leah's Maid)
Gad and Asher

Now we have 12 sons listed which makes 12 tribes. Seems simple enough. However, Jacob (Israel) complicates things in Genesis 48:5 by claiming Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh as his own sons. In Genesis 49:28 we get the statement, "All these are the twelve tribes of Israel". This after Jacob (Israel) has finished blessing each of the twelve sons listed in chapter 35.

Fast forward to the New Testament in the book of Revelation. In chapter 7, verses 4-8, the twelve tribes are listed as the following: Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin. We are missing Dan and Manasseh has been added in. Recalling that Jacob (Israel) claimed Ephraim and Manasseh as his own we might expect them to both be listed, but instead Ephraim has been replaced by his father Joseph.

If we look in Numbers chapter 1 we see a census listing of the 'sons of Israel'. Broken into tribes Levi is left out because they were to be 'over the tabernacle of the covenant' and later would not be apportioned any specific area in the Promised Land. Manasseh is listed as a tribe and so is Ephraim, but curiously Ephraim is listed as 'of the people of Joseph, namely, of the people of Ephraim'. Since Ephraim was given the blessing of the first-born, this could explain why Joseph is listed in the listing of the tribes in Revelation instead of Ephraim. Since Ephraim's people were considered Joseph's people.

Now there are many other lists of the 'twelve' tribes of Israel throughout Scripture and strangely they are almost all different in content or order, but what I want to know is why Dan is missing in the Revelation list. Anybody...

Ordination to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ

2008-06-12T12:00:00.010-04:00

As you may recall about a year ago I attended my first Ordination Mass. Eight seminarians from the Archdioces of Atlanta were ordained to the transitional diaconate. I am happy to say that as of May 31 all eight men were ordained to the priesthood. I was blessed enough to be at this Mass as all eight men completed their journey to the priesthood. Below is a picture of the new priests giving their first priestly blessing to Archbishop Gregory.

Please pray for these men who have been faithful to the call of Christ.

Why I Am Catholic

2008-05-16T08:00:00.004-04:00

There are two vivid memories I have in regards to my Catholic upbringing and a third one once I had abandoned Christ’s Church.

The third memory is of a time when I had visited a friend’s family and they were all sitting around in a room discussing various things. I was probably around 23 years old. Two of the family members got into a discussion about religion and it centered on the lack of intelligence one has to have in order to believe in things like the virgin birth of Christ and the Resurrection. One of the men stated how he did not understand how anyone with any scientific knowledge at all could believe any of it. I do not know what made him turn to me as I was just quietly listening, but he asked me if I believed these things. I said that I did. He asked me why. I replied that the Church taught me these things. It was really the only thing that came to my mind. He did not press me any further, but I could tell I must have been one of those whose intelligence was lacking. On the way back to our apartment, I told my friend that I did not know why I had told his family that I believed those things, because I really did not. I have never spoken to my friend about that conversation since, but it was the first time I had publicly denied my faith.

The second memory is of my Confirmation and preparation. I was in eighth grade and around 13 years old. I distinctly remember being lined up with my fellow confirmandi in our white robes with our Holy Spirit dove pins waiting to process in. I also remember earlier that year, during our preparation, a priest warning us how most people leave the Church in their teenage years. Ok, it does not take a genius to notice a trend, but in my case it was prophecy. Almost as soon as I received Confirmation, I stopped attending Mass. You see, I was an ‘adult’ now and could choose what I wanted for myself.

The first memory is when I was about 9 years old and was overwhelmed with the reality of the omniscience of God.¹ I had walked into the kitchen to get some cereal or something (so much for vivid) and I decided to step over to the other cabinets instead of the one I had originally been going towards. You see, I had decided I was going to trick God. He thought I was coming in to open the original cabinet and get the cereal. Then I realized that of course God would have known I was going to change my mind, so I changed my path again. This led me to realize that God knew that I was going to do that also. This went on for about thirty seconds or so (I am a little slow), until God’s infinite knowledge of me was made abundantly clear. He had known I was going to do all of this before these little thoughts had even popped in my head. So I went and got the cereal and ate it. It only occurs to me now that my original thought of what God thought I was going to do (open the original cabinet and get the cereal) is what I ended up doing.

As you might have already figured out, I was baptized as an infant (1972) in the Latin (or Roman) rite of the Catholic Church. Growing up I do not think I even knew that other Christians existed. I knew there were other religions, but I thought if you were a Christian you were a Catholic. Even as a child God was always personal to me; I was interested in him and he was interested in me. As I had been brought up to know, he was so interested in me that he sent his Son to die for me. I do not think I ever fully grasped what that meant to me back then (and I really do not think I have done much more than begin to understand it now), but I knew that it meant he at least was interested.

I probably had a typical American Catholic 1970’s religious education, which is to say not much at all.² Both my parents were Catholic and we attended Mass every Sunday (as far as I can recall.) As is typical, I received my first Holy Communion in second grade. I remember singing in the choir around that time. Well, maybe I just remember going to choir practice. Over the next few years I do not really remember much in the way of Church life except the aforementioned Mass every Sunday and going to Confession whenever my mother went. I guess she figured if she needed to go my brother and I probably did too. As I got older (6th and 7th grade) I began to fall into serious sin and my childhood beliefs started to gradually fade away into the background. Things of God just did not interest me anymore. I did not bother to learn anything else; because by the time I was 10 years old I already knew everything about everything. During 8th grade I became acquainted with a particularly not nice bully and spent a year dealing with stuff I would not wish on anyone. That same year, while I was wondering why I deserved this and feeling sorry for myself, I received Confirmation (the laying on of hands and full reception of the gifts and life of the Holy Spirit) and made a decision which I now regret more than any other. I left Christ’s Church. I did not blame God for my bully situation; he seemed so distant that it did not even cross my mind. It was not with any fanfare or belligerence, but with a great apathy towards God and his Church.

I became more and more introverted over the next few years and God seemed farther and farther away. My sins were not what I consider the typical outward sins of a teenager, but were all based on my great lack of love for my fellow human beings. (You know those whom I seem to recall God said it was important to love.³ ) I am sure you have seen the t-shirt or bumper sticker that says, “Mean people suck”, well my philosophy at this time was just, “People suck” and I reveled in it. That is what happens when we consciously choose to turn from God. He allows us to drink deep of our own passions as we harden our hearts towards him.

That, as in all that God does, is a grace. He knew what I needed and he knew where I needed to be taken before I would surrender myself to him. Back then though this philosophy began to eat away at me. I began to wonder if life would continue after death, whether God even existed, and what the point of all this pointlessness was. I had become the master of my introverted self, only to find that as master, I was really a slave.

It was then, in this place of weakness, that I was offered a job. It does not sound like a life altering event, I know, but God sometimes speaks to us in a still small voice.⁴ The job was located in Jupiter, Florida and there is absolutely no reason I should have taken that job or (as far as I know) that the man who offered it to me should have offered it. Through God’s Providence though it was offered and taken. Off to Jupiter I moved and met a group of people who God had specially designed to deal with Todd. Here I came face to face with something that I had not even heard of; ‘non-denominational’ Protestantism. They were theologically Baptists in disguise, but I did not know any different back then and they probably would be offended at that description.

The man who had given me the job and his wife⁵ had allowed me to live with them for a couple months that summer (1996) until I found a place of my own and at Christmas they gave me a bible. I already had a New Testament that I think I had received at my First Communion and I had read out of it here and there throughout my life, but that was about the extent of it. I kind of rolled my eyes internally as I opened this present up, another in a long line of ‘gentle’ promptings by them. They were always inviting me to come to Sunday service or to the meals they had on Wednesday evenings (which just so happened to be followed by youth group.)⁶ I always declined or ignored the invitation, because I did not see what was so special about where they went to church. I still considered myself a Catholic even though by this time I no longer had any idea of what that truly meant, not to mention I probably had not been to Mass in at least ten years.

In the mean time I had become friends with many of the people that were in the youth group and most of them were truly trying to live out God’s calling in their lives. None of the kids that I hung around with before had this transparent yearning to follow God’s will. These kids (high school and early college age) were striving to live holy lives and really, when it comes right down to it, you just can not beat holiness as a witness to Christ. You see it and you want it and man did I want it.

After receiving this bible I decided to read it completely through and surprisingly enough I did over the next few months. I cannot begin to express the profound effect this had on my beliefs and my life. Even though I had been brought up to believe the bible was God’s Word, it was just another of those things that I had decided did not really matter. Fully realizing that this is the very Word of God and seeing people try to live holy lives were God’s one-two combination and no other punches were needed. God had restored my faith in him, but I still thought I knew everything about everything…

Eventually I became involved in the previously mentioned youth group at the local ‘non-denom’, even though I was technically too old to be in it. I also started to attend a small group led by a woman who was involved with Youth For Christ (an evangelical parachurch organization). Sometime in 1997 I went on a trip with the YFC group. While on this trip one of the leaders took me aside and asked me why I did not attend the church services (He also attended the local ‘non-denom’). I presented him with an impeccably logical argument that stated, among other things, that I could worship God apart from any man-made organization and therefore I felt that I did not need it. He listened politely and told me something that looking back continued to sit in the back of my mind and probably was the catalyst in what I was searching for in regards to who God’s Church really was. He pointed out to me that Jesus had commissioned his disciples to evangelize the world.⁷ He then showed me that the Apostles did just that. They went throughout the world preaching the Gospel and starting churches everywhere they went.⁸ Slowly I realized that the Church was not a man-made organization. In fact, Jesus had built it himself.⁹ It seems pretty obvious now, but remember I still thought I knew everything about everything. I decided to give this Church thing another go around based in no small part on that ten minute conversation. That was when I started attending the local ‘non-denom’ services and really decided to participate fully in what God had in store for me.

I attended some Christian concerts and events where people would preach or talk about some topic of interest and these invariably ended with an ‘altar call’. An altar call is basically an invitation to ‘accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.’¹⁰ During this invitation they might say a few things about knowing Jesus personally and talk a little bit about what Jesus has done for you on the cross. They then will invite you to say a ‘sinner’s prayer’, which they generally proceed to give you an example of in order, I guess, to help you along in the process. You are then usually invited to come forward to show your profession of faith in Jesus and they might have someone pray with you when you come up front. I do not know why, other then I just did not like getting up in front of people, that I never participated in coming forward at one of these events. Thinking back on these presentations and invitations, they are very emotionally charged and the pressure to come forward is very great. You sometimes would see the same people go forward at multiple events trying, very sincerely, to turn their lives over to the Lord. You always saw a large number of people come forward and that always would draw a large round of applause or Hallelujah’s, depending on the dynamics of the group. My conversion took place over a few months and there was not a specific day that I went through each of the “things you must do to be saved”, but during this time God worked his way back into my life to where I finally realized that my life needed to be about him and about his will for me.

During this time one of the girl’s in the youth group (also technically too old to be in it) and I began “dating”. I put it in quotes, because I waited until a week before Beth was going to move away to attend a different college to let her know my feelings. So while she lived three and a half hours to the north we “dated” for all of five weeks before I asked her to marry me (9/16/97). I moved up in January (1998) about ten minutes away from where she lived. Three hours and twenty minutes make all the difference.

We were both attending the local community college and to our surprise a New Testament class was being offered and we decided to take it. I can not do the moment justice, but we are sitting in our desks on the first day of class and in walks a man dressed all in black with a white collar on. A priest! I had not seen one of those live and in person in over ten years. We quickly found out that he was not Catholic, but an Episcopal (U.S. wing of the Anglican church - which is the Church of England) priest. This man loved Jesus and it came through in everything he did. In his class I learned all sorts of things that I had never heard of; the background of the New Testament, how it came into being, the political circumstances that Israel found herself in around Christ’s birth, what language(s) were spoken by Christ and his followers, and many, many others.

Beth and I quickly befriended him and decided to attend the Episcopal services. The first time we attended it all came flooding back. Something I did not even know that I had been longing for. The liturgy was very similar to a Catholic Mass and I drank it all in. This was someplace where people actually kneeled. There were periods of silence for reflective prayer. There were communal responses. I had not realized that I had missed any of this. Then the bread and the wine were brought forward and he spoke Christ’s words over them. “This is my Body…This is my Blood.” Communion! I had totally forgotten about Communion. The ‘non-denom’ only had Communion once a quarter and that was at the Sunday night service and I was totally unaware that they even did that until years later. It certainly was not something that was stressed in any way as something important. Here Communion was the center of the liturgy, not his homily (sermon) which is what seemed to be the center at the ‘non-denom’. The few months we were living here were also stored away in my mind as God led me where I did not know I was heading.

Eventually we decided to move up our wedding date and asked the Episcopal priest if he would preside at our wedding. He was excited for us and was happy to do so. We were married (5/9/98) and decided to move back to the Jupiter area. All of our friends and Beth’s family attended the ‘non-denom’ and that was where we were still comfortable so we returned to it again. This was a weird time for me; I started to notice that all the people around me did not actually believe the same things, even though they went to the same church. There was a small faction of people who others called Calvinists and a few of the Calvinists were on staff. I started to hear about different things that the Calvinists found inconsistent with what the non-Calvinist pastor put forward as truth. Eventually some of the Calvinists started to leave. I noticed some of my beliefs fell along the lines of the Calvinists (though not all of them did) and started to wonder about what I really believed about certain topics. The youth pastor was a Calvinist and he really pushed everyone to think about what it is that we believed. I started to learn a little about John Calvin and Martin Luther; what their beliefs were and the reasons they put forth for doing what they ended up doing. People always seemed to hold them up as these wonderful men who had saved Christianity, but as I read more about them the picture was not so rosy. It did not affect my beliefs about God too much, because these guys were just men and it was not their fault if people were holding them up as ‘heroes of the Faith’. What it did do was make me realize that maybe not everything I was being told was on the up and up. Maybe I needed to guard my intake of information by being as wise as a serpent.¹¹ Everyone was always telling me to compare everything with Scripture. They kept telling me that it was the only sure way that we can know God. So I did. It seemed to make sense; as I was told the Bereans did it after all.¹²

I did not delve too deeply though, because, as you might recall, even though I was learning new things all the time, I already knew everything. A year later we moved to the Atlanta area (5/99). We still did not know too much about all these different Protestant denominations. Non-denominational is called that for a reason. We decided to ‘shop' around for a church to call our home. After attending several Protestant denominations and ‘non-denominations’ in the area, and finding none that we could agree on or like, we settled into a sort of apathetic, non-church going life. The honeymoon with attending church seemed to be already over and the shine had worn off. Now that we were away from our friends and the safety and comfort of that community I fell back to my default position that it did not really matter if or where I went to church. God would understand. As I had been told, God gave us all these denominations so that each person would have a place to be comfortable and so that it would be easier for God to reach them. If God wanted to reach me through a church he would find a place for me. Little did I know the place he had in store.

That was the way it stayed for about a year, until a cousin of mine invited us to a non-denominational church that he had attended the week before. He had attended the very first service of this new church and now we were going to attend the second one. The people gathered in an elementary school for the service and we liked it. The pastor was personable, the music was well done, and they even had weekly communion, even if it came in little to-go containers.¹³ Since deep down we knew we should be going to church, we decided to start going here. Not to mention we would be supporting my cousin in his new found faith.

This went on for a couple of months and Beth got involved with the middle school group and we started to get acquainted with some of the people there. Then, my cousin started coming to us with questions about Christ's divinity. He was reading all these verses in the bible that seemed to indicate that Jesus was not God. He was very confused and wanted an explanation. After a few conversations on this topic I noticed that he had stopped giving the benefit of the doubt to the orthodox belief that Christ was God and felt that it seemed clearer that it was not so. We had a discussion one night about all this in great detail and it seemed to get bogged down in the meanings of words or how different translations worded different phrases. A couple of days later I had the bright idea to start over and try to use a small group of Scripture verses that we could both agree on. I sent him a quick e-mail with those Scripture verses and framed my argument around them. I asked him to consider this with an open mind and to ask God to reveal the truth to him. I then quoted 1 John 3:22¹⁴ to him and sent it on its way, fully confident of his conversion to what I had showed him was plain in Scripture. I think it suffices to say that I might have been a tad over confident in my argument.

My cousin not only did not see what I thought was so plain, he proceeded to send me a lengthy e-mail of, I assume, every verse he thought proved his point of view. I was a bit taken aback by the sheer number of verses he had compiled, but it meant he had clearly thought this through more than I had so I set about responding to it. If there was one thing that was burned into me from my youth in the Catholic Church, it was there was one God in three persons.¹⁵ This was nothing short of the most important thing in Christianity - who God is. If we do not get this right, then all else falls apart - our worship becomes idol worship. If Christ is not God, then he is a creature and no creature, no matter what he has done, is to be worshiped. So I went about using my Scripture against his Scripture to prove what I could so readily see, because of what had been passed on to me in my youth. Considering what I knew at the time, I think I did a pretty good job. Of course after my first failure with him I had scoured the internet to see if there were answers to ones that I really had no answer for. Interestingly, a lot of these were Catholic responses and it was another thing that I later found tucked away into my brain.

Fourteen pages of response later I sent it off to him. It did not change his mind one little bit. I was absolutely stunned that he could be so blind. His response was basically that I was just reading into the verses what I wanted to see. It was the first time in my life when I witnessed the failings of a 'sola Scriptura'¹⁶ theology firsthand. What more could I bring him then the very Word of God? When he denied that my interpretations were authoritative in his life, what could I say? It was not as if his interpretations were ridiculous. They were incorrect, but on the surface they seemed to make sense. Granted, neither of us were theologians, but if two people who had read all these verses, were semi-intelligent, were genuinely searching for the Truth, had prayed about this, and desired to serve God could be at such odds over the bedrock of Christianity (who Christ is) by following ‘sola Scriptura’ I might have to rethink that as a part of my belief system.¹⁷

This same cousin was working with the high school youth group at the time and my wife became concerned¹⁸ that he might be telling the kids that Jesus was not God. So she met with the pastor on Wednesday night that week and shared her concerns with him.¹⁹ She was about to find out that the pastor was not so sure himself if Jesus was God. He agreed that my cousin should not be teaching the kids that Jesus was not God,²⁰ however the pastor told her that there was no way we could know if Jesus is God or not, because Scripture is not clear on this point. He said, it seems like at some points he is very human and it seems like in others he is more, but since Scripture is not clear we are not held to a belief that he is God. You can believe he is God if you want, but you do not need to believe it to be a Christian.²¹ When Beth came home and told me he said these things, I was just flabbergasted. In fact, I was so shocked that I told her she must have confused him with the way she discussed the topic. (Remember a person that already knows everything, like me, would be able to discuss the topic properly…) So a few days later I sat down with him and I found out how wrong I was. Here is a man who calls himself the pastor of a group of Christians. He went to a Christian seminary and what he came away with was that Jesus might not be God. I could not comprehend that type of failure. How could he even call his church a Christian church? What the heck could that possibly mean now? Take away Christ's divinity and you take away our salvation.

Providentially, Beth and I were just about to leave on vacation to Jupiter, Florida, and on the way down we stopped and talked to the Episcopal priest who had married us about what was going on. He told us that we needed to get the heck out of there and hopefully this guy was just a knucklehead. Once we arrived in Jupiter we also spoke to Beth’s old youth pastor. He suggested we look at the PCA church²² , because at least we would know the denomination’s teachings before we even got involved.

After we returned we let our pastor know that we could no longer attend his church. I told him the reason why and he said that he wanted to speak to us after service that Sunday. I told my cousin about the meeting and he said he wanted to be there, so I said sure. So Beth and I pulled up after service was over and met with him explaining our reasons once again. We told him that who God is, is non-negotiable to us. It is not something that we can work around or discuss to come up with some kind of compromise that makes everyone happy. After a few minutes he said that he did not think that this was the real reason we were leaving. He said that Jesus being God or not was not a doctrinal issue that someone should leave a church over. Clearly he believed very strongly in his belief that you do not have to believe that Jesus is God to be a Christian. At least my cousin realized the ramifications of taking one side or the other. If I was wrong I was committing idolatry. If my cousin was wrong, he was denying his Creator the worship God is due. This apathy of the pastor I could not deal with and so I left our conversation at that. As the conversation came to an end he proceeded to tell us that whatever we were really leaving for, he was sure God was calling us someplace else. Looking back I can say with certainty that he got that correct.

All along this journey, God had been laying little seeds here and there through many different people and situations. By this time I was really starting to question my beliefs (or what I had come to accept blindly) about the nature of Christ’s Church. Beth and I found a PCA church (Summer 2001) and started attending. We liked it immediately. We liked the pastor, the sermons, the people…everything. We became heavily involved with the youth group and joined a small faith group. There were many internal issues in this particular church that had led to it being pretty small, but Beth and I loved its size and we came to know most of the people there very well.

I started reading more and more, trying to understand the things that I was learning. One of the things that came out of my Scripture studies was Jesus’ desire for the unity of his people, his Church.²³ Jesus prays for Christians to be one as he and the Father are one. Our unity is supposed to be like the unity of the Trinity. Not a unity of minimalist standards it seems. The reason Jesus gives us for our unity is so that the world may believe that Jesus was sent by the Father. In other words, our disunity is a direct witness against Christ. Not small potatoes in the scheme of things. I had also started reading a lot of Catholic apologetics²⁴ and it was making a lot of sense. Beth and I had never officially become members of the PCA church and our pastor asked us one day why that was. I told him that I just did not want to join a church²⁵ and he asked if he could stop by our apartment later that week to discuss the PCA church with us. When he came over I only really had one question to ask him. What was the PCA’s position on reconciliation between churches? Were they trying to heal the rifts between them and other denominations? Were they even trying to reconcile with the other Presbyterian churches that they themselves had split from? (OK, maybe three questions...) After basically saying that they talked with the other churches, but they were not trying to reconcile with them I had received my answer and he had received his.

I had been immersed in Protestantism now for about five years, as it is now 2002. I started to sporadically attend Mass with my mother and a sense of the holy during the worship of God returned to me from my childhood. All those little seeds that had been planted along the way were starting to sprout up. The question of authority and who God’s Church was became more and more the center of my inquiry. How exactly can the four Protestant denominations (2 - Non-denominational / 1 - Episcopal / 1 - Presbyterian) that I had attended for any length of time all claim to teach only what the bible taught (which they all did) and all teach different things (which they all did)? They all claimed to teach God’s Truth from God’s Word. How could this possibly be? One of the arguments I saw put forth was that the Protestant denominations agreed on the essentials and the things they disagreed about were inconsequential. Besides the fact that the question of who gets to decide what the essentials are is totally ignored, the statement is shown by the facts to be not true. However, say I granted that it was true, why are they separated? If the things that separate them are so inconsequential why have they abandoned the unity that Jesus himself so clearly desires?²⁶ The truth of the matter is that most of the issues that separate them are important. So I was back to my original question. How can they all claim to teach God’s Truth only from God’s Word when the things that they taught were sometimes radically different?

Some other questions were really bothering me: I had recently discovered that the Catholic bible had more books in it than the Protestant one. How could I claim that the ‘extra’ books found in the Catholic Bible are not supposed to be there? Who had that authority? How could I objectively know if my pastor had God’s authority to lead my local church? Was it really God’s plan to give us Scripture and for us each to individually come away with the proper interpretation? Question after unanswerable (for me) question assailed the Protestant house that I had built. I will not go into all of them or this would go on another seven pages, but something very simple finally occurred to me. Remember, I am slow. God did not make me the final arbiter of truth. This was a really big part of ‘the everything’ that I thought I already knew everything about. It simply did not matter if I thought denomination ‘X’ was more in line with Scripture than denomination ‘Y’. My submission to God's Church is not based on something as faulty as my personal interpretation of Scripture. God did not create us to decide who has these sometimes extremely high level theological concepts right. He made us to submit to him and to those he had given his authority to. Period. Denomination ‘X’ and denomination ‘Y’ may contain a good deal of the Truth. They may even love God with everything in their being and strive to serve him the best they can. However, as long as they are apart from God's promise and authority they are only human institutions. I longed for Christ’s Church which he had instituted and promised to protect himself.

Jesus calls us sheep for a reason. We are easily led astray and left to our own devices, there is no limit to the kind of trouble we can get into. Because of this, our Lord did not leave us in this world on our own without his light. He has placed his light in a city on a hill and it has been shining for almost 2000 years and he is calling all of us there. The fullness of what he wants to give us is only available in his one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church and what he wants to give us is himself. In him is all we need in all eternity.

God loves us. Jesus is very clear as he sends forth his disciples to evangelize the world that he will be with his Church until the end of time.²⁷ His Church is his Body.²⁸ His authority was given to his disciples who then passed it on to other men.²⁹ Scripture is also clear about what we are to do to those in authority. We are to submit.³⁰ The Gospel is not a contradiction. God does not reveal himself falsely. I now had a decision to make. Do I reject God; do I reject Scripture; or do I reject these man-made churches? You can see that I really only had one choice available to me.

So the question became how can I know God’s Church? Most churches will readily admit they are man-made institutions and would not even think of claiming divine origins. If they do not even claim to be Christ’s Church why should I even bother with them at all? They admit to their human (only) origins and Scripture plainly tells me that Christ founded his Church. Out of the churches that do make the claim, there are really only two that can historically be taken seriously.³¹ Although they are both very similar in their beliefs, only one claims to have the successor of Peter as its earthly head, the Catholic Church. I had begun to realize that Christ did found a visible Church and that he built it upon Peter.³² I finally came to the realization that to continue apart from the Church was to be apart from God's will. The PCA church we were in dissolved because of financial problems. God had taken away all my impediments (i.e. all my excuses) and all that was left was to rely on him totally. And so I returned home (Summer of 2002). I received the sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) and through Christ's priest received forgiveness of my sins.³³

That is how it happened and it was not easy at times. Now that I know that I do not know everything about everything, it seems I have freedom for the first time. Freedom to learn about God through his divinely appointed Church, freedom to put stock in the writings of the first Christians who followed the Apostles, and the freedom to realize that I do not need to figure everything out on my own down to the last detail, because I can actually trust those whom God sent before me. That is something that for whatever reason, many people do not consider freedom. Real freedom does not mean you are free to do anything, but free to choose God’s will. It is my hope that non-Catholics will apply that understanding of real freedom to God’s Church, especially in regards to how they think about what was done by the Luther, Calvin, and the other Protestant reformers.

During all this, I was not bright enough to talk to my wife about my struggles as they were happening and my returning to the Church was a bit of a surprise for her. Not to mention she was not exactly thrilled that I had decided to become one of those crazy Catholics. We both struggled for a while living in a marriage where we believed different things, but I have also experienced the wonderful blessings of answered prayer and the grace that comes from watching my wife come to join me in Christ’s Church (Easter Vigil 2004). We had some hard times to go through, but God has blessed us all the more through them. Now once again we share a common faith in our Lord. We continue to try to live our lives, by God’s wondrous superabundant grace, to bring Christ to all we meet, by word and action.

Looking back I wonder sometimes why God put up with me for so long or still does for that matter. I had nothing to offer; in fact I had abandoned him. That is what is so wonderful about God’s grace. It is his free and undeserved gift to us. God is faithful, even when we are not.³⁴ In my baptism I entered into a covenant with God. My parents and Godparents presented me to the Lord and made promises on my behalf. God accepted those promises and established in me what Adam, through his sin, had separated from in himself and all who would follow him³⁵ ; the supernatural life (sanctifying grace) of God. When I became older and had abandoned my faith instead of taking on those promises as my own, God did not abandon me. He remained faithful to the covenant he and I had entered into some 35 years ago. His love that was poured into me at my baptism is a superabundant love. It is meant to be given away freely and sacrificially. Even, as Christ has shown us, if it means death on a cross. I fail in this at every turn, but still God has remained faithful and that is why I am Catholic.

Todd
Feast of Saint Bartholomew the Apostle
August 27, 2007

To all those who allowed the Lord to work through them so that I would re-embrace my faith in God, go my heartfelt thanks. To all those who allowed the Lord to work through them so that I would return home to Christ’s Church, you have my undying gratitude. I know those in the first group might not have always been in the second group, but it is my sincere hope that those who are only in the first group will see that the two groups should not be mutually exclusive. Special thanks to my mother for her faithfulness. She was the only one in my immediate family and those of my extended family that I was around (my father’s side of the family) to continue to love Christ’s Church. As of this writing there are five more of us that have returned (including my cousin who was mentioned earlier) or entered and I am sure in no small part to her prayers and faithfulness. To all of you who spent any time in prayer on my behalf my eternal (literally) appreciation is yours. Never doubt that prayer works, because God is always working good for those who love him.³⁶ To anyone who struggles with sharing your faith by speaking to others about God, first be holy.³⁷ Your holiness is more of a witness to Christ than anything you can say. I know it was for me.

“People try to make the Catholic message sound complex, but it's really simple: ‘Repent, believe and be baptized; then if you commit mortal sin, repent, believe, and confess. Period.’—even a five year old child can understand that…From a Catholic perspective, repentance, faith, and baptism are just as easy to get across in an evangelistic appeal as they are for Protestants; in fact, they are easier since one doesn't have to explain, ‘Okay, repentance and faith are necessary, but baptism isn't, but it's still really important, and so you need to do it, okay?’ On the Catholic view, the message of the elements we have to preach is much simpler: Repent, believe, and in the saving waters, receive the righteousness of God.”³⁸

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

Footnotes

[1] Luke 18:17 - “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” ^
[2] For various reasons, which I will not get into because of the nature of this writing, the local parishes I was involved in did a pretty bad job in passing along the teachings of Christ’s Church to us sheep in the aftermath of some of the changes in the Church after the Second Vatican Council. (Many of these changes were illicit and against the teachings of the Council itself.) Even though this is a legitimate reason for my bad formation, I must take responsibility for the fact that I just did not care to know what the truth was as I got older. ^
[3] Luke 10:27 - And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” (See also Leviticus 19:18, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, and James 2:8) ^
[4] 1 Kings 19:11-12 - And he said, “Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord.” And behold the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice. ^
[5] She was my uncle’s ex-wife and the man was her new husband. ^
[6] Of course they meant well and because of their acts of kindness I was right where God desired me to be. ^
[7] Matthew 28:19-20 - “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” ^
[8] See the rest of the New Testament after the Gospels, especially the Acts of the Apostles. ^
[9] Matthew 16:18 - “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” ^
[10] I do not think I was ever present at one where there was an altar, so I am not sure why the moniker is still used. ^
[11] Matthew 10:16 - “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” ^
[12] Acts 17:10-11 - The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroe’a; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni’ca, for they received the word will all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. ^
[13] Don’t ask. ^
[14] 1 John 3:22 - and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. ^
[15] Remember we crazy Catholics are always making the sign of the cross which among other things professes our faith in the Blessed Trinity. ^
[16] Sola-Scriptura is the unbiblical idea that Scripture is the only infallible source of Christian doctrine. ^
[17] There many other reasons why I did abandon sola-Scriptura, but this episode opened my eyes to the flaws inherent to its application in the life of a Christian. It was only later through further study that I realized that it was an illogical and unbiblical doctrine. ^
[18] While I was off slinging verses, she was worried about the salvation of souls - I love my wife. ^
[19] As my cousin has since wryly pointed out, ignoring our Lord’s injunction to admonish the sinner first by confronting him alone, then with the support of one or two others, and then to bring it to the Church. My witty reply being that none of the three of us, back then, believed in the Church per se. Matthew 18:15-17 - “If Your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” ^
[20] Why the pastor agreed with my cousin’s conclusions, but thought he should not teach it, I have no idea. ^
[21] Where this, ‘if it is not clear to you, you do not have to believe it’ theology is found in Scripture is still unclear to me. ^
[22] This was the church her old youth pastor was now involved in. The Presbyterian Church in America (www.pcanet.org) ^
[23] John 17:20-21 - “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” ^
[24] Catholic apologetics are arguments in defense of the Catholic faith. ^
[25] In the back of my mind I was thinking that I should not join myself to a church that was not Christ’s Church and at this point it did not seem like that was to be found in the PCA. ^
[26] John 17:20-21 - “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” ^
[27] Matthew 28:20 - “[T]eaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” ^
[28] Colossians 1:24 - Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church[…] ^
[29] 2 Timothy 2:2 - and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. ^
[30] Hebrews 13:17 - Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you. ^
[31] The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. ^
[32] Or I guess it would be more precise to say that I always knew that, but it had taken me a long time to admit it. Matthew 16:17-19 - And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ^
[33] John 20:23 - “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” / James 5:14-15 - Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil In the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. / Matthew 16:19 - “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” / Matthew 18:18 - “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ^
[34] 2 Timothy 2:13 - if we are faithless, he remains faithful - for he cannot deny himself. ^
[35] Romans 5:12 – “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” ^
[36] Romans 8:28 – “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.” ^
[37] Leviticus 11:44 - “For I am the Lord your God; consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy.” / Matthew 5:16 - “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” ^
[38] Righteousness and Merit, Jimmy Akin (http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/righteou.htm) ^

Put the Mass back in Christmas

2007-12-25T00:00:00.000-05:00

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.

Prayer Request

2007-11-12T09:33:00.000-05:00

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.

Subscribing to comments by e-mail

2007-10-25T17:50:00.001-04:00

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.

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick weighs in

2007-10-23T23:13:00.000-04:00

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)

Mark Shea day(s)

2007-10-21T17:30:00.000-04:00

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).

Was Deep Thought this deep of a thinker...

2007-10-15T17:58:00.000-04:00

(Todd)

(Beth )

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

A little smack'll do ya

2007-10-04T23:51:00.000-04:00

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

Salvation - A Correspondence

2007-09-25T23:19:00.000-04:00

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.

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

2007-09-25T03:34:00.001-04:00

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.

Fasting

2007-09-24T22:56:00.000-04:00

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.

Mr. T's ode to mothers

2007-09-24T08:57:00.002-04:00

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

Not that I have ever seen any others...

Denial of Holy Communion

2007-09-11T06:12:00.000-04:00

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.

The Grace of God

2007-09-10T21:54:00.000-04:00

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?

Assurance of Salvation - A Correspondence

2007-09-01T21:58:00.000-04:00

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.

Internet Service Providers (Part Two)

2007-08-31T09:48:00.000-04:00

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...

Our will is free in Christ Jesus

2007-08-27T23:40:00.000-04:00

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.

Waiting In Joyful Hope 2.0

2007-08-25T23:12:00.000-04:00

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.

Faith and Life Parish Lessons

2007-08-24T20:05:00.000-04:00

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.

Internet Service Providers

2007-08-21T18:51:00.000-04:00

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...

The Return of Us

2007-08-13T23:09:00.000-04:00

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.

Vacation...

2007-07-25T21:24:00.000-04:00

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.

Commenting Problems

2007-07-14T10:32:00.000-04:00

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.

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

2007-07-12T01:58:00.000-04:00

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.

Motu Proprio

2007-07-07T22:06:00.000-04:00

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.

Exploding soda can of death

2007-07-05T18:03:00.000-04:00

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.

Prayer Request Update

2007-07-04T17:05:00.000-04:00

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.

Prayer Request

2007-07-03T00:55:00.001-04:00

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.

Division

2007-06-28T23:23:00.000-04:00

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 ^

"Bought With A Price"

2007-06-13T22:20:00.000-04:00

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."

Why the Church refuses the Eucharist to non-Catholics

2007-06-11T23:04:00.001-04:00

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." ^

The significance of the hierarchy of truths

2007-06-11T10:38:00.000-04:00

The basic message of this blog entry is that there is truth, but some of it is not essential or even significant. Now I am not sure if the author, Chris Hilliard, Pastor of Newell Baptist Church, realizes that is the road he has gone down, but it certainly seems to be where he has landed.

Mr. Hilliard references a system of theological triage that he uses to divide up God's truth into categories of: essentials to be considered Christian (1st tier), non-salvific doctrines that should not be compromised (2nd tier), and things everyone agrees we just are not sure about (3rd tier).

There are some basic problems with this system. The first is the fractured nature of the communities (and therefore fractured witness to Christ - see John 17:20-23) that this type of thinking causes. Specifically by the second tier truths. Things that everyone agrees are important, because each group considers them clearly revealed in God's Word. So important that these Christians are no longer in communion with each other if they disagree about them. Our Lord and Saint Paul had a few things to say about divisions and lack of unity. They were not positive things.

You do not divide the Body of Christ. It is as plain as that. Christ has one body, even though it has many parts. As Saint Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:12, "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ." And in Ephesians 4:1-4, "I therefore...beg you to walk...with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit..." Saint Paul warns about those who cause divisions in Romans 16:17, "I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them."

The first thing anyone who casts themselves off of the body must know is that they will perish. Again Saint Paul says, "If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?...If all were a single organ, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body." (1 Corinthians 12:17, 19, 20) Without the body, the parts lose their meaning and ability to function as Christ intended.

I have no suggestions for those in Protestant communities on how to resolve this issue amongst themselves except to take a good hard look at what their forefathers did by casting themselves off of the body in protest. If nothing else it should be plain to all that formally separating themselves from Christ's Church has only guaranteed that error is being taught as truth. Every time a group splits from another over a 1st or 2nd tier issue, only one of them can have the truth (they both could be wrong of course, but let us give the benefit of the doubt). If the original group had the truth then the new group has left over something that they were wrong about. Not only were they wrong, but it is now incorporated into their teaching as truth. Multiply that by every denomination you find in just your local phone book and you can see how quickly error is disseminated. Even if the new group is the one leaving the error it quickly becomes impossible for one group to recover all of the truth. That is why humans apart from the protection of God can not undertake such an enterprise as spreading the Good News within the fullness of Truth. That is why Christ took it upon himself to build his Church and promised to always be with her. (Matthew 16:18 & 28:19-20)

The Catholic Church proclaims a hierarchy of truths. An article from Catholic Faith magazine gives a good overview of the hierarchy of truths. In the article Cardinal Schönborn, the general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is quoted from the Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 42, "the 'hierarchy of truth' does not mean ‘a principle of subtraction,’ as if faith could be reduced to some ‘essentials’ whereas the ‘rest’ is left free or even dismissed as not significant. The ‘hierarchy of truth . . . is a principle of organic structure.’ It should not be confused with the degrees of certainty; it simply means that the different truths of faith are ‘organized’ around a center." Simply put everything that God has revealed to us through his Son, Jesus Christ, is important. Just because I am personally less certain about something does not make it less truthful or significant. It certainly does not mean that I no longer have to believe it.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the three tier system was how things should be done. Another underlying problem quickly becomes apparent. Who gets to decide what truth goes in what tier. Mr. Hilliard readily admits this, by some examples of what would go in which tier, at the end of his entry,

Personally, I believe we have allowed some 3rd tier doctrines to come into the argument and confuse us. Is baptism by immersion a 1st tier, 2nd tier, or 3rd tier? Is it necessary for salvation? No. Is it clear in Scripture? Yes. Thus it’s second tier. Is being a continuationist/cessationist a 1st tier doctrine? Is it necessary for salvation? No. Is it a second tier issue? Is it absolutely clear in Scripture? Debated, in my opinion. Thus, it’s a 3rd tier doctrine.

By his own reckoning his first example of baptism should be 3rd tier because someone (for instance a Catholic) finds the proposition that baptism is not necessary for salvation incorrect (i.e. debatable). He proceeds to say that being a continuationist/cessationist is debatable as to whether it is clear in Scripture. He then qualifies that statement with 'in my opinion.' Because he has decided that it is debatable it is third tier. As you can see most things quickly degenerate into 3rd tier (and by definition inconsequential) truths. It makes you wonder where this system of 'theological triage' would be rated amongst its own tiers...

Mr. Hilliard concludes,

If the BFM is simply a confession of 1st tier doctrines, then I believe we should be held accountable to them. If the BFM is a confession of 1st and 2nd tier doctrines we must ask whether or not we should be held accountable to it as well. If 2nd tier doctrines are as I defined them, I could possibly see the merit in saying yes. But, the problem with the BFM is that it contains what I believe are 1st, 2nd, and possibly even 3rd tier doctrines. Plus, I believe many are beginning to confuse 2nd and 3rd tier doctrines. And as long as the possibility lies that 3rd tier doctrines are currently a part of the BFM or might be in the future, we must not let the BFM become a “creed”.

So we have the logical result of this system, the removing or de-emphasizing of truth in order to rally around the 'essentials'. Who gets to decide what those 'essentials' are is pretty much left up for grabs. As the previously referenced article points out, "Sometimes a person does not see that the denial of one truth leads to the denial of another." It is pretty scary to see how quickly some truths are abandoned when we abandon the truth that Christ protects his Bride.

UPDATE - 6/28/07: See Division post for continuation of conversation.

My sin is not as bad as yours

2007-06-07T23:26:00.000-04:00

I remember, a few years back during my Protestant days, being told that comparing my sins to those of someone else was pretty stupid. First of all, looking down on someone else because his sins are greater in number or kind is not conducive to having my sins be smaller in number or kind. The fact of my comparison kind of hurts the scale I was just using. Second, and more important, God is holy and when I sin I am not. That would be what you would call the real scale. Granted I am not a Protestant anymore, but as a Catholic, I must say, it still seems like common sense.

I am sure we can all agree that sin makes us stupid, but should we really be trying to win that contest? A Catholic apologist, whom I usually deeply respect, seems to be continuing his free-fall into the trap of comparison sinning. He seems to think that because others are even bigger jerks than he is that his (relatively) smaller lack of charity is a-ok. He seems to think that because being sarcastic or clever sometimes is helpful in getting a point across that it therefore should be used with reckless abandon. This isn't about him, but it is another reminder that what we are all called to is love. If you need a primer, see the thirteenth chapter of Saint Paul's first letter to the Corinthians and then look at a crucifix and recall that our Lord told us to love our enemies.

I know I am not the only one who fails in this area, but sometimes seeing it in others whom I respect is a wake up call. The line about reading 1 Corinthians 13 as a primer is not an attempt at facetiousness. Saint Paul wants us to know very specific things about love. Some are things we often forget or just flat out ignore. Love is kind. Love is not boastful. Love is not arrogant or rude. Love is not irritable. Love does not rejoice at wrong. Love bears all things.

Saint Peter tells us to always "be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls [us] to account for the hope that is in [us]." It is the mantra of the apologist and it should be of every Christian. Yet how many of us heed the following words, "yet do it with gentleness and reverence." How many of us point to our opponents behavior as justification for how we act when we should "keep [our] conscience clear, so that, when [we] are abused, those who revile [our] good behavior in Christ may be put to shame." Christ didn't call us to win by whatever means, he called us to love. "For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God's will, than for doing wrong." Jesus calls us to take up our cross and follow him.

It is easier to be a jerk in the hopes of being clever than to love your opponent. Unfortunately for those of us who choose the clever path, having been a jerk does not show up on the prerequisite list for heaven.

Coke Commercial

2007-06-01T10:52:00.000-04:00

Carl Olson over at the Ignatius Press blog wants us to watch a Coke commercial:

Catholic Coke Commercial?
Most of us have seen far too many titillating, suggestive commercials for soda, beer, cars, clothes, burgers, and just about everything else. Here's a commercial from Europe that starts out in the usual fashion (girl, guy, beach, etc.), but ends with a, um, blessed little twist.

Excellent use of condensation.

Ordination

2007-05-27T22:33:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I attended my first Ordination Mass. Eight seminarians from the Archdioces of Atlanta were ordained to the transitional diaconate. Not only does that mean they are now Deacons, but it is also a fancy way of saying, God willing, they will be priests next year.

Everytime I see Archbishop Gregory I am more impressed. His homily was on the role of a Deacon and he stressed that their first role is to take care of the poor. He addressed them as his children and he their father. It was just wonderful to see this successor to the Apostles shepherding his flock.

Two of the newly ordained (shown below) come from our parish Saint Brigid.

Reverend Mr. Jim Flanagan.

Reverend Mr. Neil Dhabliwala.

Here are all eight of the newly ordained.

Congratulations to all eight. May God bless and protect them as they move towards ordination to the priesthood. Please keep them all in your prayers and continue to pray for more men to answer God's call.

Catholic Conversions

2007-05-24T12:25:00.000-04:00

James Swan explains what Catholics really mean when they give the reasons why they became Catholic.

I will not interact with the whole essay here, but his basic point is that those who leave their Protestant communities, to enter the Catholic Church, do not spend enough (or any) time talking about a conversion to Christ. They focus on a conversion to "an infallible church," and their "conversion stories are about what they did...what...they achieved."

Giving Mr. Swan the benefit of the doubt I would say this is a case of a Calvinist talking about Catholics in decidely non-Catholic language. I mean what person who is becoming Catholic does not believe that the Church is the Body of Christ. Not in some invisible, we can not really know the Church, kind of way. In the way that Jesus confronts Saul about persecuting the Church. "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" What person who believed this would possibly think that he is not being converted more towards his Lord by entering his Lord's Church?

Mr. Swan says that these stories "are about what wisdom and glory" the converts have achieved. Even if we grant that his observation is correct, it just means that the convert has not been converted enough. This person is not boasting about themselves because they are Catholic, but because they are not Catholic enough. However, having read a lot of these stories myself I do not think it is safe to assume Mr. Swan has gotten this correct. Let us look at his evidence.

Since there is only one story quoted, you would assume that it shows a clear example of Mr. Swan's thesis. Reading the example I am afraid I find the opposite - the convert clearly speaks of the gifts that he has been given, not what he has done for himself. Since the example quoted in no way (that I can see) supports his thesis, I am lost as to the reason why he uses it or why no other examples are given.

If Mr. Swan does not enjoy these stories he is certainly free not to read them. If he thinks Catholics are a bunch of glory seeking, self-lovers that do not realize what fools they are for receiving "the Lordship of an alleged infallible church magisterium as the ultimate rule over their lives," then he will be included in my prayers. He is, of course, free to think these things, but they really do not further his thesis in any fashion. In fact, they seem to be stated in the hopes that whoever reads them will just accept them blindly as truth and continue on to agree with his conclusion.

Mr. Swan spends a lot of time talking about what a true conversion to Christ entails. I applaud him for that and most of the things he says should be evident in anyone's life who claims Christ as Lord. It just is not plain to me (granted I am not the brightest bulb) why he is railing against something that all seems to be in his head.

Those who say Catholic conversions are about trusting a "human" institution show their lack of trust in Jesus when he says, "I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." and "...behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age." A Protestant who enters the Catholic Church already trusted his Lord. The new Catholic's gift of faith has only grown to trust that Jesus will always protect his Bride.

So All May Eat

2007-05-03T17:58:00.000-04:00

Here's a really cool idea how to serve the poor and also respecting their diginity as persons made in the image and likeness of God. The owners decided to open a cafe where the patrons only pay what they can afford. Check out their website for more information.

Pictures

2007-05-01T22:59:00.000-04:00

Hello random people who I may, or may not, know...

It has come to my attention that I haven't posted in quite some time, or maybe it was only that one time... either way.

So in order to make this blog seem cool and exciting (not just one or the other) I will now wow you with my photo taking skills. On your right you will see our Godson (Luke) as seen in his natural habitat. (He had to stalk that cake for quite some time before it finally submitted.)

On your left is our Goddaughter (Mary Clare) hanging out at her older brother's football game. Obviously these are two of the most adorable kids on the planet!! Oh - but I haven't even gotten to our niece and nephews yet!

In the interim though, here's a lovely picture of my handsome man...

...yes that's right. Some women go for tree huggers, I go for tree biters. Don't knock it until after you have eaten your first tree. Unfortunately due to poison ivy Todd had to give up gnawing on random foilage. (I'll spare you all the poison ivy pictures.)

More pictures coming soon...

Returning to Georgia

2007-05-01T22:25:00.000-04:00

It's official. We are moving back to Georgia. We have our move back date (5/19), the truck rented (Penske), and Beth gets to keep her job (woohoo!). Unfortunately, we don't know where we are going to live yet...I figure we will work that out relatively quickly.

As for why we are moving and what is going on up here in Virginia, Beth's family has decided to place her Grandaddy in a assisted living facility. Please keep him and the family in your prayers.

Meanwhile, Michelle (Beth's cousin) is about 10 months pregnant and ready to pop any minute now. It's a boy (Joshua) and he should be arriving any day.

Hopefully we will see you soon...

Searching for our new permanent/temporary home

2007-03-01T21:50:00.000-05:00

So Todd really doesn't want to live in a trailer. I really don't want to live in my grandparent's basement, where we currently reside. You would think more than these two particular options would exist, but you would be wrong. You see, apartments and homes for rent don't exist in the middle of nowhere (which is where we live). So what it comes down to is single, double, or modular. I guess that means there are three options. None of which Todd likes.

Test 2

2007-02-06T22:25:00.001-05:00

Test 2

Test...

2007-02-06T21:18:00.001-05:00

Test...

One man trusts God

2003-11-17T23:33:00.001-05:00

One man trusts God. The people of the nation of Texas respond...

One from the Old Oligarch

2003-11-17T08:30:00.001-05:00

O.O. blogs on male headship.

U.S. Catholic Bishops Move to Reinforce Ban on Birth Control

2003-11-17T08:00:00.001-05:00

U.S. Catholic Bishops Move to Reinforce Ban on Birth Control. Here it comes. Bishops reaffirming the Church's stance on birth control. Up to this very day, I still hear Catholics say that we can do whatever we want in this area. I wonder how those Catholics will respond to this. Here is a snippet:

The nation's Roman Catholic bishops, acknowledging that American Catholics pay little heed to their teaching on contraception, launched an effort today to reinforce the ban on birth control and linked it to the anti-abortion campaign.

Holding their regular meeting in Washington, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops tackled another sexuality issue today. They approved the text of a brochure that lays out the church's condemnation of same-sex unions.

The contraception question was introduced by the Committee for Pro-Life Activities, the bishops' anti-abortion committee, which proposed the writing of an easily understandable booklet. The booklet would address questions about the church's teaching on marriage and sex, why "natural family planning" - seeking or avoiding pregnancies according to the fertility cycle - is acceptable and why it believes birth control is wrong.

Loving a Church, Living the Faith

2003-11-14T09:01:00.001-05:00

Loving a Church, Living the Faith: A Response to Andrew Sullivan by Nathan Nelson. Read about a Catholic who is trying to live the holy life that Jesus calls us all to live. Instead of tearing the Church down and telling the Church how it should follow his impulses, Mr. Nelson is willing to obey the call and submit his will to the will of God. Good stuff. Read his conversion story here.

Episcopal Bishop Robinson

2003-11-04T08:15:00.002-05:00

Father Jim Tucker blogs on the consecration of Bishop Robinson in the Episcopal Church.

The UN and Abortion

2003-11-02T23:59:00.002-05:00

Harbor any thoughts that the UN is a 'basically good' organization? Flip through this article and see the deeds. Taste the fruit. Smell the stench. Here is a morsel:

In an accompanying document, entitled "Review of International Standards for Rights of the Child and Adolescent Rights," UNESCO describes how to pressure individual nations that have not embraced this adolescent reproductive rights revolution, saying that it is now possible "to hold countries accountable on the basis of human rights violations" at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

NOT allowing unfettered access to abortion for adolescent 'women' is a 'human rights violation'??? People, this is where we are. We aren't heading there, we are there. All of us 'good' people look around at all the other 'good' people. Standing around. Doing nothing.

Thank God there are people who aren't like me and are doing something. Lord, convert me to your will.

Hate Crime Legislation

2003-11-02T23:34:00.004-05:00

Want to see what 'hate crime' legislation is really about...take a gander.

Want to win your neighbor to Christ?

2003-10-28T23:19:00.003-05:00

Want to win your neighbor to Christ? Be holy.

Read something worthwhile by SecretAgentMan

2003-10-28T01:50:00.003-05:00

Read something worthwhile, by SecretAgentMan. Gain some perspective about lawyers, sin, law, salvation, and the kind of people God is leading us to be, instead of being the kind of people we settle for. It's a little long, but worth the read. Here's a snippet:

They're trying to kill Terri Schiavo because our country, our culture and its laws, owe fealty to a false god who is coldness itself, a false god of death. We worship this god in our hospitals, in our entertainments, our philosophies, our art and education, in our laws, and by our work and our professions.[5] Every sin, not just the sins of lawyers and judges, pays homage to this god because the wages of sin is death. As it did 2,000 years ago, and in every age before and since, sin stalks the earth like a lion, hungry for its victim. It's eaten ten million babies, it won't notice Mrs. Schiavo. But we notice her, because we see she is the victim our gutless way of life has staked out for the lion's jaws. The grease, the sleaze, the spirit of the world, covers everything, and when it's set against that sum a lawyer's greed and lust for position is small beer. Our salvation won't come from "better" law schools, "correct" constitutional jurisprudence, electoral victory for the "right" party, or any of the other bourgeois conceits that have whited our national sepulcher these past fifty years or more. Our salvation will come from a hundred million personal miracles that will demand the truth in schools, righteousness in law, sanity in politics. The reason why using lawyers and judges to fight lawyers and judges always seems to resemble Canute forbidding the tide to come in is because, well, the tide's coming in. We don't need Canute. We need St. Boniface to chop down the sacred tree of death, to spur our savage hearts to prodigies of love. Nothing else will do, because our God won't settle His case.

So, to return to the reader's questions:"They say that in spite of this bill Jeb Bush has just passed, the decision is ultimately going to rest with the courts again." Yes, that's true -- a nation of people who are cowardly enough to permit a great evil always need to pretend that it's being done by someone other than themselves. It has been some time since I've read our founding documents, but I don't recall that the judicial branch is supposed to be the final authority--is it? It doesn't matter. So long as men are the final authority, they will murder and rape each other no matter what branch of government they happen to occupy. "Where does the system of checks and balances ultimately end?" In Hell, unless men wake up from the American illusion that neatly constructed laws will supply,"by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives."[6] "And why is it that a governor can at will pardon someone on death row, but he can't simply intervene in this case?" When the victim is significant enough, even a governor's will must submit to the day's necessities, just as it did 2,000 years ago. Jeb Bush is a courageous man, and his actions so far have shown us the kind of miracles we can expect from the Sacred Heart of Jesus. But there are still too many deadened souls, too many would-be Pilates who, like Antonin Scalia, think "reaching the Governor's mansion" is the important thing in life, for Jeb Bush to turn back the tide of death single-handedly. By all means let's castigate unwholesome laws and the blind scribes who enforce them. But let's not be deluded into thinking that judges and lawyers are leading our collective slouch toward Bethlehem. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12 (KJV). Anyone who thinks law firms and courtrooms are the kind of "high places" St. Paul had in mind isn't straining his neck enough.

Sign the petition for life

2003-10-24T00:22:00.002-04:00

Sign the petition for life.

Waiting In Joyful Hope

Bishop Thomas Tobin Responds to Congressman Patrick Kennedy

The Mathematical Consequences of Contraception

Further Reading

Ecclesia Semper Reformanda

Indulgences

The Two Consequences of Sin

The Tale of Two Brothers

The Treasury of Merit and the Keys to the Kingdom

Further Reading

Purchase the Handbook of Indulgences now from amazon.com!

Archbishop Chaput - "St. Paul in the Public Square"

Archbishop Burke's Keynote Address at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

Twelve Tribes of Israel

Ordination to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ

Why I Am Catholic

Put the Mass back in Christmas

Prayer Request

Subscribing to comments by e-mail

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick weighs in

Mark Shea day(s)

Was Deep Thought this deep of a thinker...

A little smack'll do ya

Salvation - A Correspondence

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

Fasting

Mr. T's ode to mothers

Denial of Holy Communion

The Grace of God

Assurance of Salvation - A Correspondence

Internet Service Providers (Part Two)

Our will is free in Christ Jesus

Waiting In Joyful Hope 2.0

Faith and Life Parish Lessons

Internet Service Providers

The Return of Us

Vacation...

Commenting Problems

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

Motu Proprio

Exploding soda can of death

Prayer Request Update

Prayer Request

Division

"Bought With A Price"

Why the Church refuses the Eucharist to non-Catholics

The significance of the hierarchy of truths

My sin is not as bad as yours

Coke Commercial

Ordination

Catholic Conversions

So All May Eat

Pictures

Returning to Georgia

Searching for our new permanent/temporary home

Test 2

Test...

One man trusts God

One from the Old Oligarch

U.S. Catholic Bishops Move to Reinforce Ban on Birth Control

Loving a Church, Living the Faith

Episcopal Bishop Robinson

The UN and Abortion

Hate Crime Legislation

Want to win your neighbor to Christ?

Read something worthwhile by SecretAgentMan

Sign the petition for life