Evil and Suffering

I have been listening to Catholic Answers for over a year now.  Every once in a while they have shows for non-Christians to call in and talk about why they don't believe in God.  Inevitably, the number one problem has a theme, though it can be stated in many ways, it is called "The Problem of Evil."  I have two points I want to make about this:

1) The problem of evil.

What is the problem of evil?  It can be formed in many ways, including, but not limited to:

1. Why do bad things happen to good people?
2.  Why do the innocent (especially Children) suffer?
3. How can a good God allow evil in the world?
4. How can he have created us so that some of can go bad, very very bad?

I recently read a book called Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.  It has quickly become one of my favorite books, I am already "reading" it again (quotes because I have the audiobook).  CS Lewis gave the following analogy when prompted about how "bad" can exist: darkness is not a thing in itself, but rather a lack of light.  In a similar way "bad" is not a thing in itself, but rather a lack of "good".  God gave us free will, and his love and respect for us is so great that he is even respect our decision not to love Him.  Then it becomes clear how evil can be in the world.  It is from those of us who choose not to love and obey God.  Bad happens because of people lacking good.  It is because of sin.  Original sin caused us to have a broken nature.  Our broken nature gives us a desire to sin, a desire to fill the emptiness in our lives with things of this world, and often times, things that offend God.  Sin.

The problem of evil doesn't end there.  God is all good, and as such only wills things that will be for our ultimate good.  When a person asks "why do the innocent suffer?" they are thinking only of this world.  While some might think it is obvious that suffering is bad (or a lack of good), there is a huge burden of proof in this claim.  You would have to show that the suffering in question does not do any good in the person's life. Which brings me to the second point:

2) It is amazing how God brings people home through suffering.

In light of the problem of evil people, I must ask, have you ever listened to conversion stories?  Go find a group of converts to the faith and you too will find a common theme.  There are a lot of bad things that happened to people that brought them to where they are now on their faith journey.  These include, but are not limited to circumstances such as: deaths in the family, divorce, childhood abandonment, cancer, cancer treatments, car accidents, abortion, adultery, you name it.  There are always a number of horrific circumstances that will make a person reevaluate their life.  As a disclaimer, it isn't always bad.  I, myself, am a convert who simply went looking for the truth, and managed to find it in an unsuspecting place.  That aside, you will generally find that in a room full of converts, it is almost a given that something bad had happened that brought them to realize the place they should be.  And looking back at part 1, we can see that it is, in fact, out of suffering that God can bring the biggest graces into our lives.  We are so strong-willed and pig-headed that God has to use suffering as a means to get our heads out of the clouds and focus in the direction that we want to go, home to heaven.

While I don't have any horrific suffering in my past, I can't deny that God, frequently, has to go to some extraordinarily great lengths to get through my selfish pride and get me to listen.   Getting me to realize that I was proud was step one, and I am still working toward step 2... I'll let you know what it is when I get there...   CS Lewis called pride the "Sin of all Sins" and it is easy to see why.  It is the kind of sin that gets you to think you know best.  It was pride that got Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the tree; they wanted to be "like gods" in knowing good and evil.  And so it was, pride set this problem of evil in motion.  It is the root of our broken nature, the root of our sin.  We have evil in the world because it is exactly what you would expect when the people that populate it have original sin, pride, and free will.  

A Bible Study

I have come across a fantastic scripture study that both Protestants and Catholics can do.  It focuses on the life of Jesus and the miracles that surrounded his birth, his life, and and his death.  What you do is you read the following verses and meditate on them:

1. Start with the prayer Jesus taught us in the sermon on the mount, the Our Father.  Mostly to remind us that He is God, and we are not, but also to put our petitions in perspective.  Luke 11:2-4
2. The Angel Gabriel announces his birth to Mary. Luke 1:26-38 (Pay close attention to Luke 1:28)
3. Mary visits Elizabeth. Luke 1:39-56 (Pay close attention to Luke 1:42)
4. The birth of Jesus. Luke 2:6-20
5. Jesus is presented in the temple. Luke 2:22-39
6. They found Jesus in the temple. Luke 2:41-51
7. Jesus was baptized by John the baptist. Luke 3:15-22, John 1:26-34
8. Jesus at the wedding feast of Cana.  John 2:1-12
9. Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom. Mark 1:14-15
10. Jesus is transfigured.  Matthew 17:1-8
11. The last supper. Luke 22: 14-20
12. Jesus is sold out my Judas in the garden. Luke 22:39-46
13. Jesus is scourged at the pillar. Luke 23:16-22
14. Jesus is crowned with thorns. Mathew 27:29-30
15. Jesus carries his cross.  Luke 23:26-33
16. Jesus is crucified. Luke 23:33-46
17. Jesus is resurrected. Matthew 28:1-10
18. Jesus ascends into Heaven. Luke 24: 50-51
19. The holy spirit descends. Acts 2:1-41
20. Give all of the glory to God in his 3 persons:  Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.  As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.  Amen.

This is a really cool bible study that I think one could do part of each and every day.  Being Protestant or Catholic is irrelevant, we are simply meditating on the life and death of Jesus, and He is our aim.  We can learn a lot about him and ourselves by meditating on these scripture verses.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention.  Once you have meditated on these verses, you will have said almost 4 complete Rosaries. Yep, you heard it right here.  The Rosary is nothing more than scripture meditation.  Even the Hail Mary (see #2 and #3).  So, meditate, pray, and praise Jesus for giving us his Mother on the cross (John 19:27).

**Note: For those wondering, there are two more mysteries of the Rosary that I have omitted: The Assumption of Mary, and Her Coronation.  These are both alluded to in the book of Revelation, and thus are perfectly scriptural.  But, it was outside of the point I wanted to make here.  There are additionally a few more prayers in the Rosary, but again, the point here was the the overall big-picture of the Rosary is a meditation on the life and death of Jesus Christ.

God, the psychoanalyst.

I was listening to Christian radio the other day and there was caller that gave a very moving story.  This caller, Andrew, was down and out.  He had planned his own suicide.  On his way to work in the morning, he was planning to run off the road (I suppose it was a dangerous place to do so), he had the spot picked out and everything.  Then, Mandisa's song "Overcomer" came on and he felt something.  He couldn't describe exactly how it felt, but the song was so powerful that he decided not to kill himself.  He was an overcomer, and God loved him, and he finally knew it.  It was quite moving to hear him call in right after this experience had happened...  The song had saved his life.

While he attributed this feeling to the song in question, I think it raises an interesting point.  What he felt wasn't the "song" per-se, it was obviously God's grace that he felt.  It was God's own life in him that makes a person feel that way.  It wasn't the song that saved him either, it was grace.  God can give us His grace in any way that he sees fit.  We could just be born with it, never sin, and be on our merry way up to heaven because it was just there.  However, God, having created us in His image, knows more about us than we do.   He knows that we need tangible things to attach grace to.  The song is quite independent of grace, but the song makes us feel a certain way, so God uses that.  He uses visible signs to communicate invisible realities.  You probably see where I am going with this...

God chooses to give us grace in certain ways.  Not because He needs to, but because WE need Him to.  The definition of a Sacrament is: "An outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace."  Why the outward sign?  Because we need it.  Our senses only detect things of this world, things with matter.  We see, hear, smell, touch, and taste, and God uses all of them.  Take, for example, the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession).  We need to repent of our sinfulness, and we could simply take our sins straight to God, but God knew us better.  He knew that we needed to say them aloud, and to hear the words "you are forgiven."  He didn't need to do this at all, but He knew his children did.  It is a little funny, you hear people say that they take their sins straight to God.  But then later, they feel the need to confess it to one of their friends.  It's as if, simply telling God in prayer and dropping it wasn't enough.  It might be enough for God to forgive us, but it doesn't seem to be enough for us to forgive ourselves.  We need to say them aloud.  The Eucharist is another one of these outward signs.  Jesus could have infused us with his body in infinitely many different ways.  But, he chose to come to us under the vail of bread and wine, things we could taste.  All of the Sacraments have this aspect, baptism with water, confirmation with oil, etc., etc..

Back to Andrew's story.  God is, of course, not bound by the Sacraments.  He can give his grace to anyone, at any time, and in any way.  But, think long and hard about this.  When do you feel it?  Usually it is tied to something external.  After all, those are the only things we really "feel".  God is a great psychoanalyst; He knows what his children need.

In what name are we baptized?

Baptism is an important theme in the bible, but there are some competing theories on how it should be done.  The first is rooted in Matthew 28:19:

"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..."

From this we see that we are to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."  But is this all that the bible has to say about it?  What about Acts 19:5

"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

So, then, we are suppose to be baptized "In the name of Jesus."  Which is it?  Father, Son, Holy Spirit, or Jesus?  Here is some food for thought.  Think about at Jesus' baptism.  What happened?  Well, we don't know much other than that he was baptized by John the baptist, and then the aftermath.  But, why was he baptized?  Why were the Jews baptizing?  Was it because Jesus was a sinner in need of redeption?  Absolutely not.  Then why on earth was there a baptism before Christ?  It is rooted in Jewish tradition.  Baptism was a ceremonial cleansing.  It wasn't the "grace giving" event that we see it as now.  It was merely a precursor.  This is actually mentioned in Acts.  You can't miss it if you read the two verses prior to the 5th one above.  Acts 19:2-5

"He said to them, “Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?” They answered him, “We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit.” He said, “How were you baptized?” They replied, “With the baptism of John.” Paul then said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Aaah.  So the "in the name of Jesus" here doesn't actually mean "in the name of".  Being baptized in the name of John, meant that you received the baptism that John gave.  And, being baptized in the name of Jesus meant that you received the baptism that Jesus gave us.  Which points back to Matthew 29:18, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  The baptism of John was not the event where you receive the Holy Spirit.  The baptism [in the name] of Jesus, on the other hand, is an event in which we are filled with the Holy Spirit.  We are given the grace of God and we become children of the Father, and thus we are given his Holy name.

Meditation

This post is primarily a reflection, not an argument.  It is more of the secret-public-journal type of post.  Just a heads-up. :)

If you have been keeping up with my posts, or know how the past year has gone for me, this won't be news, but for those who don't, it goes something like this.  In May 2013, we moved from Atwater to Fresno (about 1 hour south) to be closer to family.  We were about to have our 4th child and we wanted a better sense of community than we had in the Merced area.  However, I did not get a job closer to our new home.  Instead, I gained a 1 hour and 7 minute commute from our new house to my job.  This left me with about 2 and a half hours of "car time" each and every day.  In the beginning I listened to audiobooks, but I soon discovered Catholic radio and a show called Catholic Answers.  It is a call-in show centered on Catholic Apologetics.  Couple that with an encounter I had with a friend in which I was unable  to articulate exactly why I believed what I did, I was hooked.  I was an avid listener and I processed as much as I could over the course of a year.  Another friend of mine gave me a bunch of fantastic audio talks on various Church topics.  In the span of 1 year, I absorbed a LOT.

It was spiritually enlightening to me.  It had been a few years since I had been in school, and I really did miss the learning and thinking and processing that I had only ever gotten from college classes.  Two of my audio talks were over 20 cds long and were actual college classes where the professor (Dr. Brant Pitre) simply put a recorder on the podium.  I loved it, and I ate it up.  CD after CD.  I remembered more than seemed humanly possible.  It was exactly what I needed and wanted.

Throughout my life I have always struggled with prayer.  Not only the question of "why would we?" (which is another post) but even going through the motions.  My wife and mother-in-law seem to have almost this iMessage-like conversation with Jesus.  They send the text, he replies.  My conversation was, at best, clumsy, and at worst, non-existant.  God knew what I wanted, he knew what I needed, why on earth does he want me to tell him?  It had been a frequent topic in the confessional too boot.  One that I never seemed to get past.

At the end of this past school year (after 12 months of commuting) I finally had a break from my commute.  I was teaching summer school closer to home and I only had a 7 minute drive instead of the usual hour plus.  I was also exhausted.  In terms of units, I had taken roughly 26 units worth of classes in my commute (in terms of the carnegie hours), and I had been doing homework as well.  I decided to take the summer off.  I though it would be good for me.  I though it would be a well-deserved break.  A welcome relaxing time away from study.  I was wrong, but I didn't know it until it was over...

Let's put this all together.  As it were, I can always tell when my wife has neglected her prayers life.  She becomes more irascible, and, well, I'll leave other descriptors for the sake of my marriage (it's ok, she knows that it is true).  When I started school two weeks ago, I was fairly depressed.  I thought it was due to other factors like the end of the summer and other reasons that are part of a different post. But, when I started listening to Catholic content again, my depression lifted.  It was like a fog had cleared.  All of a sudden, I was perfectly fine.  What was that all about?!?!  Now I know...

All that time, I thought my prayer life had been bunk.  All that time, I struggled to pray the way I saw others do it.  But, that wasn't the way God connects with me.  It is through my greatest passion, learning, that God speaks to me.  My prayer type is not that of vocal prayer, but that of meditation and contemplation.  All that time last year when I was on fire for God, it wasn't just because I was learning, but that my learning was prayer.  It was the prayer that connected me to God.  And, it wasn't until I stopped doing it for 3 months, and picked it up again, that I realized it.  I am not saying that each person necessarily has a "type" and that is all they should do, but what I am saying is that my spiritual dryness that I though was a lack of conversational prayer, was really a lack of meditation.  God found a way to break through to my hardened heart; it is the reason I have a commute.  How else could a husband and a father of 4 get over 2 hours per day of study?  They can't.  This is the only way.  It is the reason He brought my family back to the "promised land" and why all of my attempts to get a job closer to home have failed.  It isn't his plan for me.  I probably could find a way to spend that much time in study, but until I do, my commute will not get shorter.  And I will thank God for not putting me to the test until I am ready.

And so, one more year, 400 more hours in the car, 400 more hours of apologetics, 400 more hours of class, 400 more hours of prayer.  Thank God for knowing me better than I do...

The Tridentine Mass

This past Sunday, I had the opportunity to attend a Tridentine Mass.  If you don't know what this is, it is the Mass, in Latin.  It is a bit more than that, really, but that isn't the point of this post.  The current Mass format was instituted shortly after the Vatican II council (and there have been a couple revisions since then).  We now have mass parts as well as the readings from the bible read in the native language of the people.  I want to briefly describe my experience as well as my thoughts on the Traditional Latin Mass (now called the "extraordinary form" of the Mass or the "Tridentine Mass")...

1. I didn't understand anything.  Well, that's not completely true.  I understood when the priest said "Kyrie..." and I did manage to pick up when the "Our Father" (Lord's Prayer) was happening.  Much of the goings on were able to be picked up by the actions of the priest.
2. Only the homily was in English.  It was a good homily too.  It was the pastor of St Joachim a few miles north of us in Madera.  I have been to that parish only one time in my life.  Interestingly enough, he brought up my one visit in the homily.  I attended the church to see a collection of relics (it was really cool).  Another event is happening there in a few weeks where they have an icon of Mary.  I think I need to attend...
3. There was quite a bit of "quite time."  There are many, many, points in the mass where the priest is saying prayers quietly to himself up at the front.  And, he is facing away from you.  It is easy to "zone out" while this is happening, intentionally or unintentionally.  As I was just trying to absorb all that was going on, I couldn't help but plan this post during the silence.  Hey, that is reflecting, isn't it?
4. There were lots of bells.  Bells are only rung twice during the Mass in English.  The bells were rung at least 15 times, maybe 20 during the Tridentine mass.  Maybe it is to wake the people up if they are sleeping? :)
5. The whole thing was obviously more reverent.  I am sure this had at least something to do with the population at the church as well.  Almost all of the women in attendance were wearing veils (as was the norm when this mass was the norm).  I am not sure how to describe the "feeling in the air" that was a much deeper respect than we typically see on Sunday morning.  Maybe it had something to do with... (on to number 6)
6. all of the kneeling.  If you think you need to be in shape for an English mass, you don't know the half of it.  There was a TON of stand-sit-kneel-stand-kneel-stand-kneel-stand-etc...  I would estimate that I was kneeling for almost a third of the mass.  It was probably less...  I think I was only sitting for the homily.  The rest was either standing or kneeling.
7. With the priest facing away, you couldn't tell what he was saying.  You were "out of the loop".
8. I wish I did know what he was saying, that way I could participate.  I have heard that many people in the past would go to mass and do things like "say the rosary" during all of the quite time.  There is plenty of time for personal prayer, or mind wandering moments.  I can see why people would do those things.  With the mass in English, we are much more likely to pay attention.
9. The chanted songs were beautiful.
10. Receiving communion at the communion rail was awesome.  Again, this goes back to the increased reverence.  Only on the tongue, not in the hand.  And, the altar server had the little "plate thing" just to catch the consecrated host if it fell.  I say again, increased reverence for what is going on and what exactly the Eucharist is.

All-in-all, I think the changes made to the current Mass format are good.  While I would be likely to learn Latin if I had to say a bunch of stuff in Latin every week, the general population at large isn't.  If the whole point is to bring souls to Christ, it is probably a good idea to talk to them in their native language.  And so now when you go to mass, you know exactly what the priest is saying, which is a good thing.  Though, if I had my say, I might bring back communion rails.  It took longer, but some things are worth the wait.  I know that I would be completely in the minority on this one.  With the added inefficiency, and a church full of a thousand people, Mass could easily take 2 hours.  Two hours spent in prayer, mind you.  That would be a good thing, right?  Well, not with my 4 kids with me.  It would probably be awful and I might just say over and over "Lord, please help me endure my blessings"...

The Choice

In any discussion about the Sacrament of Reconciliation, you will, inevitably, end up talking about "mortal sin."  Those sins that sever your relationship with God. The ones that cut you off from a state of grace.  Here, "mortal" means "unto death".  The sins that, if left unreconciled, could land you a spot in hell, eternally separated from God.  The 3 conditions that must be met for a sin to be "mortal" are as follows:

1) Grave matter. No stealing paper clips from work; I mean breaking the 10 commandments. 

2) Full knowledge. You have to know it's wrong. 

3) Deliberate consent. This is the big one, you have to know how wrong it is, and then do it anyway. 

One of the RCIA teachers was saying (more or less) that the 3rd condition is pretty hard to meet. You would almost have to commit a sin out of spite. That anyone who ended up in hell, really and truly chose it. Interestingly enough, this is God's greatest respect for our free will. We can choose hell if we want to. In the past I had considered the 3rd condition rather easy to meet. If you know it's wrong and do it anyway, that's deliberate consent, right?  Well, maybe, maybe not. Only God knows your heart. Only God knows your spirit, how you may have been tempted, and if you desire mercy. I have always wondered, what does it look like for some one to "choose hell"? How could someone do that?  A couple days ago, I got my answer... 

I was watching a debate between Trent Horn and Dan Barker. They titled the debate "God: supreme being or imaginary friend". It was obviously a debate over the existence of God. Dan was a former Protestant Minister (I think Presbyterian, but it doesn't matter) who turned atheist. Actually, in spite of his insistence on calling himself an atheist, his position was more agnostic, but that doesn't matter either.  As a former minister, he knew the bible well. During the debate he made a statement that has stuck with me...  He was talking about all of the "bad things that God did in the Old Testament" and how "mean" God was. Truthfully, God himself has no moral code, he can dictate history as he sees fit. Then Dan said, and I quote:

"I'd rather be in hell than worship a God like that."

I must say, that quote more than anything else in the 2 hour video, affected me.  I now know exactly what it looks like for a person to choose hell.  I cannot be his judge, that is left to Jesus.  I do not know his heart, where he comes from in this statement, or where his resentment for God comes from. But, he said it outright.  He would rather be in hell, separated from God...

To say that the God of the Old testament did immoral things is to say that God himself is bound by his law.  But, as the creator of the law, He is not bound by it.  The problem is that God created us in HIS image and we like to create God in OUR image.  We like to put the bounds that are on us back on God.  We don't have a single claim to life, not one more second.  If God stopped loving us, we would simply cease to exist.  God can do whatever he sees fit.  He is God, we are not.  God is without bound.  When he does things that would be immoral if we carried them out by ourselves, we simply trust that God is doing it for our own benefit.  After all, as he is our Father, he only permits things to happen that are for our ultimate good.  Let us not forget that omnipotence can come in handy when making decisions about the world.

We also know that our faith is not our own.  Our faith is merely a response to God's grace.  Without Grace, we could not have faith.  So, we cannot boast about the faith that we have.  Therefore, the lack of faith in a person is not something that is lacking in them, but rather it is born of the hardness of heart that is the rejection of Gods Grace.  It is to hear God's call in your heart and to freely say "no".

In conclusion, we pray for all of those whose hearts have become so hard of heart that they freely reject the life of God within them.  We pray that they have an increase in humility and a decrease in pride; that they come to understand God's love and his life within themselves.  We pray that those  who do have faith, never forget what the choice to accept God's Grace feels like; that we remain humble and exercise constant vigilance against the snares of the devil.  In Jesus' name, Amen.

Bible Translations

I hear every now-and-again the phrase "the true Church is the one that is closest to the bible".  What exactly does that mean?  More importantly, which bible?  Does it matter?  Actually, yes, it matters a lot.  The bible was written in two languages, the old testemant in Hebrew and the new in Greek.  So, if we read a bible in English, it had to be translated at some point.  And, any translator will give their own "flair" on what the original author actually meant (both the Holy Spirit and the person who moved the pen).  And, to that end, there are literally hundreds of bible translations.  There are two different styles of translations, complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence.  Complete equivalence is a literal word-for-word translation and dynamic is more of "what they meant when they said it" style.

For a brief history lesson, in 382 AD (around the time that the canon of scripture was established) St. Jerome was commissioned to make a complete equivalence translation of the bible from the original languages to latin.  Around 1600 AD, a bible translation called the Douay-Rheims Bible was commissioned by the church and so a complete equivalence translation was made into English.  While the Douay-Rheims lacks some readability it does give some great insight into what the actual "word" was, if you want to know.  From this point on, hundreds more English translations were made to help out the average English reader understand the written Word of God.  But, did any of these translators get it wrong?  I submit the following examples:

First, "tradition".  In Catholicism we have the Holy Bible and the Sacred Tradition, which we hold that the teachings of the Church were transmitted by word of mouth as well as the the written word.  Protestants reject this notion and accept the view of sola scriptura, which means "the bible alone".  But, you can believe whatever you want if you adjust the bible to suit your needs.  It turns out the protestant bible translators took some liberties when it comes to the greek word "paradosis".  Take the following two verses for example from the NIV (New International Version, the translation I had before I was Catholic):

Matthew 15:6 "For the sake of your tradition (paradosis), you have made void the word of God"

and

2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings (paradosis) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

Wow.  So, paradosis is "tradition" when you want to condemn it, and "teachings" when you want to support it?  That is bad theology and translating.  In Matthew 15:6, Jesus is talking about the traditions of men, worshiping idols and whatnot.  The verse in 2 Thessalonians is a clear support for the notion of Scripture and Tradition and to get around it, the translator slipped in the word "teachings".  Paul is clearly saying "listen to the authority of the Church."  Without that authority we can make the bible say whatever we want.

Which leads into the second example, "works".  We all know that sola-fide was a big deal in the protestant reformation.  It turns out that Protestant bible translators are a bit inconsistent when translating the Greek root "erg".  When it supported protestant theology, they used "works" and when it supported Catholic theology, they used "deeds" to make the "saved by faith and works" look bad.  Take for example the following two verses from the NIV, Romans 4:2 and Romans 2:6-7.

Romans 4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham  was justified by works (ergon), he had something to boast about-but not before God"

Here, protestants think that "works" are bad because they misunderstand works of the law vs the free gift of salvation from God.  Then,

Romans 2:6-7 "God will give to each according to what he has done (erga).  To those who by persistence in doing (ergou) good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."

So, it is "works" when convenient and "deeds" when convenient.  If the translator is consistent, then we read Romans 2:6-7 that those who persist by "working good", which supports the Catholic view of salvation.  Those three words all have the same root, why the change in English?

This was only two examples out of many.  Be careful what you read.  In the end, this is why we need a Church; to keep translators in line, and to help us understand what is meant in the Word of God.  While the most important thing to do is to choose a translation that you will read, it is also important to get some help understanding what it means.  Pick up a Douay-Rheims copy when you want to know what word the author used.  Or, better yet, check out the "paradosis" aka "tradition" (2 Thessalonians 2:15) that was passed on by word of mouth to the Church.  I have it on pretty good authority that one of the better Catholic bible translations is the Revised Standard Version published by Ignatious press.  The version that we use during Mass is called the New American Bible.

If you want to read a more thorough article on all of this, check out the following article on the Catholic Answers website: Bible Translation Guide.

Colossians 1:24

Peter wasn't kidding when he said in 2 Peter 2:15-16

"And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures."

Paul's writings are hard.  Romans is a tough read...  Anyway, back to the point, that I haven't started yet, Colossians 1:24.  This passage was brought up today in my studies and it is of the sort that Peter was talking about:

"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church..."

The sentence doesn't end for another 3 verses.  Paul has a bit of a run-on problem.  But, there is something very striking in this sentence [fragment]. What exactly was "lacking in the afflictions of Christ"?  This seems to suggest that Christ's passion and death was somehow incomplete.  Moreover, Paul says something even more blasphemous, that he will fill up what was lacking.  Wait a minute Paul, do you mean to tell me that you plan on adding to the paschal mystery?  Jesus wasn't good enough?  Ok, enough sarcasm for one paragraph.  Paul says that his sufferings will fill up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ.  Since nothing was lacking in what Christ did for us on the cross, what exactly does he mean?  The only thing that is lacking in the afflictions of Christ is our own participation.  I don't mean participation in the sense that we actually add to Christ, but rather, how it gets added to us.  Through suffering we are united to Christ.

Jesus wasn't crucified so we could just sit back and bask in the freedom to sin.  Jesus' death and resurrection isn't a "Get in to Heaven Free" card.  He died so that we would have the ability to be free from sin. Our mere belief that he died for us isn't enough.  Just read Romans 6:3, "Or do you not know that all of us that have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death".  Did you read that?  Into his death... We can't just be onlookers free to sin whenever we want because Jesus died for it.  He died so that we have a chance at turning away from sin.  We NEED to DO IT.  We need to fill up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ... our participation in the affliction of Christ, our participation in our baptism, our participation in our own crucifixion that is the death of ourself and our rebirth in Christ.

The 3 main Eucharistic Heresies.

We know that the Catholic Church teaches transubstantiation.  What exactly is that?  The easiest way to sum it up is "No more bread and wine."  That's right.  Bread, gone.  Wine, gone.  All body, all blood under the species (appearance) of bread and wine.  It may look like bread, smell like bread,  and taste like bread, but there ain't an ounce of bread in there...  There are many, many heresies about this teaching.  Heck, thousands left when Jesus said it in John 6.  Most of the problems fit into 3 main categories that can be summarized by: Symbolic Presence, Spiritual Presence, and Consubstantiation.  Let's take a closer look at each of these.

1) Symbolic Presence - This was a view held by many of the early reformers, John Calvin was one if I am not mistaken.  They believe that Jesus is merely symbolically present in communion.  In the first part of the bread of life discourse in John 6, Jesus does talk about this being a "memorial".  As if they stop reading the bible right there.  Just a symbol.  They do it because Jesus said "do this in memory of me."  When they drink the grape juice and crackers, they believe that they are still grape juice and crackers, but they symbolize Christ.

2) Spiritual Presence - This is the one that has infiltrated the Church as we know it.  Believers in the spiritual presence believe that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist, but no more than Christ is spiritually present all around us in the community.  He did say in Matthew 18:20, "for where two or three are gathered in my name, I am in their midst."  This is the kind of presence that believers in spiritual presence accept.  It is important to note that this is vastly different from the bread and wine becoming his actual body and blood.

3) Consubstantiation - This one is tricky.  It is what Martin Luther proposed during the protestant reformation.  We have already discussed transubstantiation, so, since the words sound similar, let us compare the roots.  "Trans" means "across" and "con" means "with".  So, with transubstantiation the bread and wine have gone, and with consubstantiation, the body and blood of Christ exist along with and beside the still existent bread and wine of the unconsecrated host.  Yes, they claim that it is still bread and wine, but with Jesus' body and blood in there too.  To point out how different this is from Catholic teaching we need only point out how we treat the Eucharist.  We worship it (Him).  We worship the Eucharist like it is God (because it is).  If it wasn't, we would be violating the first commandment.

There you have it.  The 3 main Eucharistic Heresies.  If you want more evidence on why Christ is truly present, body and blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist, it will take a bit more than 1 page on my blog... :)  But, you could start with a couple other posts I wrote: ...Our Daily Bread... and Prototypes of the Eucharist.

The Queen (Part 1)

For the past month I have been studying Marian consecration.  In the beginning, I was actually quite upset.  There were a lot of things that I felt should have been taught to me when I was first learning about the faith, if, in fact, they were true.  The Church makes some bold claims about Mary.  BOLD.  Pun intended. :)  Anyway, I was viscerally upset when I started it.  Then I stopped and took a good hard look at myself.  I don't get viscerally upset over anything, almost ever.  This feeling was foreign to me.  This feeling was not something that I experience on a day to day basis.  That's how I knew... That's how I knew it wasn't from God...  That feeling I had of anger was not a gift of God, and that's how I knew I was getting close to the truth.  The devil doesn't want you to learn the truth, it takes away his power.  After I let go of that, the understanding blossomed, and I found that the Church's bold claims were not only quite sound, but remarkably biblical.  And so, let's begin there.  How is the Church's teaching on Mary biblical?

The First Woman:
Any study of Mary must begin at the first woman, Eve.  Let's go back to Genesis and recount a couple passages that will be important.  Genesis 2:21-23

So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.  The LORD God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman. When he brought her to the man, the man said: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man this one has been taken.”

Notice a couple things.  First, this is before the fall.  She was created without sin, just as Adam was.  Second, her name was "woman".  It wasn't until later, after the fall, that Adam named her Eve.  Speaking of the fall, what happened next?  The serpent tempted Eve (and Adam, he was there), they ate the fruit, they brought sin into the world, and then God found out (so to speak).  Look at what he says to the serpent.  Genesis 3:15

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.

This passage contains something known as "the protoevangelium" or "the first gospel".  It is the first promise that mankind will be redeemed.  A few things are interesting here.  In context, this woman isn't Eve.  God will put "enmity between" the serpent and the woman.  But, Eve, just made a covenant with the serpent.  If you want to read more, take a look at the post I did called How Bad Was The Fall of Man?  So this woman isn't Eve.  It is a new woman that is promised by God.  The next thing to notice is the "between your offspring and hers".  In another, probably better, translation it says, "between your seed and her seed."  The general effect is the same.  Offspring=seed.  However, to whom do we refer to as the "seed giver?"  This is definitely the task of the man.  It is always the seed of the man.  Take a 5th grade lesson in the anatomy of the reproductive system and you will know why.  The seed is "planted" by the man.  But, here, the seed is that of the woman.  The woman's offspring will be of her "seed".  

As we will see, this "woman" is in fact Mary.  And this is a reference to the conception of Jesus.  There is some difficult theology here too.  Don't dismiss it.  If you get Mary wrong, you will inevitably get Jesus wrong too.  Jesus was all God, but he was also all man as well.  In His conception the only "man" part he was given was from Mary; God provided the rest.  Hence, it is the "seed" of the woman.  Jesus' only DNA came from Mary, as that was his only human parent.  Jesus' divinity is that of God.  The hypostatic union is the fancy word for the way in which Jesus is both all God and completely divine, and all man.  So, Mary is the woman, Jesus is the seed.  This is how the Church comes to say that Mary is the "Mother of God".  Jesus is God.  However, don't confuse this with the "Mother of the Trinity."  That isn't what is going on here.  She is the true mother of Jesus, and he got his seed from her.  Therefore, Mary is the mother of the second person of the trinity, Jesus.  Since Jesus is God, Mary is the Mother of God. 

The Annunciation:
Let us fast forward to the annunciation.  It will be even more jam-packed full of information than the protoevangelium.  I want to isolate two verses in particular.  Luke 1:28 when the angel Gabriel says to Mary,

Hail, full of Grace, the Lord is with you!

It is amazing how much can come from a mere handful words of the bible.  Where to begin.  When the Angel first greets Mary his word is "Hail".  What kind of greeting is this?  Actually, it is a greeting that is afforded to royalty.  If you look at the greek (this is clearly is hearsay as I know not Greek), the word "hail" is the same one used later on in the new testamant for "Hail, king of the Jews" when Jesus was on the Cross.  The word Hail was reserved for royalty.  Mary is being refrenced to with words used for a Queen by an Angel.  Not just a mere man.  Mary is the queen of the Angels too.  She is the Queen of heaven (more on this title in another post).  Second, the angel says "full of Grace."  Not "with grace", not "favored one," not even her name.  Unless, this IS her name.  That would be the appropriate thing to put there in the sentence.  Her given name is Mary, but her real name is "Full of Grace."  She is FULL of grace.  No grace is lacking.  No sin.  No fallen nature.  Full of Grace.  She was born without the stain of original sin.  She was the created immaculate conception.  If you want more on those choice words, read Maximilian Kolbe's reflection on the Immaculate Conception.

Gabriel goes on to explain that Mary will be with child conceived of the Holy Sprit.  And Mary's reply is, in Luke 1:34

"How shall this be, since I know not man?"

Get that "How shall this be".  Shall.  I have done a little bit of contract reading in my line of work and I know what the word "shall" means.  It is a guarantee.  If I say that I "shall drop a student" and I don't, then I have violated the terms of the syllabus.  Her reply is remarkable.  Mary doesn't use any kind of questioning tone, her first impression is that it WILL happen, and her question is How.  When she says "How shall this be" we can see her complete "yes" to God's invitation, the unity of Mary's will to God's.  She is ready and willing to perfectly do the will of God.

What about the question: "since I know not man?"  If you have read a little bit of Genesis, the word know will be familiar.  To "know" your husband was a word for sexual relations.  She says "Since I know not man."  At this point, she and Joseph were already betrothed.  The Jewish betrothal period was quite a bit more formal than our "engagement" period.  They were, for all intents and purposes, married.  Joseph would have gone off for a period to build a house for the couple.  Then, after that, their official marriage ceremony would have taken place.  If her relationship with Joseph had been one that was going to be a sexual one, then the question is completely asinine.  God didn't give the 4th grade talk "Well, Mary, when a man and a woman really love each other..."  She knew how children were made.  Her question doesn't fit.  The obvious answer is "When you and Joseph know each other."  But, that isn't what transpires.  It looks as though Mary isn't planning on having relations with Joseph at all, and that Mary was a consecrated virgin to begin with.  That is the only context in which her reply makes sense.  In fact, that is the teaching of the Church.  That Mary was a perpetual virgin.  She knows not man, forever, and that is the only way her comment makes sense.

We can see that from a few simple exegetes we have come to see biblical evidence of the immaculate conception, the mother of God, and the perpetual virginity of Mary, as well as hitting on the point of Mary's queenship (though, admittedly, there is more about the queenship that I didn't get into).

Ephesians 5

Anyone who has been to church on a day when Ephesians 5 has been read probably has some bruised ribs.  Elbows fly back and forth as Paul recounts the duties of both a husband and a wife.  Naturally, we all fall short somehow, so the finger pointing and elbow punching begins during the reading as you and your spouses shortcomings are put on display.  Just in case you don't recall the discourse, here it is (verse 21-33):

[21] Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.  

[22] Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. [23] For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. [24] As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. 

[25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her [26] to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, [27] that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [28] So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29] For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, [30] because we are members of his body. [31] “For this reason a man shall leave [his] father and [his] mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” [32] This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. 

[33] In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.

There are 3 distinct sections to this text.  Part 1: Paul speaking to both husbands and wives, Part 2: Paul speaking to wives, and Part 3: Paul speaking to husbands, and then back to part 1 at the end.

It is this second part that seems to cause the most uproar.  "Wives be subordinate to their husbands."  You can almost hear the feminist movement screaming now.  Subordinate?  What the heck is this?  I must admit, to our 21st century ears, this does sound a little suppressive.  But, is it really?  I heard/read the most beautiful, and I mean beautiful, commentary on this verse.  It comes from Pope Pius XI from his Encyclical Letter on Christian Marriage, Casti Connubi (pages 26-28)

This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact. 

The emphasis was mine.  What a great quote.  Note that this submission is not that of a slave, but rather that of order.  A successful company has a visible head, the CEO.  The one who makes the final decision on matters of the company.  The CEO is not in charge of many of operations of the company, there are other people to which that task is entrusted.  Is the CEO's job more important than that of a Manager or Supervisor?  One could say yes, but we think only in terms of responsibility, not function.  The company could no more function without its workers, supervisors, & managers than without its CEO.  The point I am trying to say is that every person in a company has an important role.  If every person understands their role, embraces it, and carries out their task, the company can only be successful.  The same goes for a marriage.  Note the Pius XI is not saying that the head is more important than the heart.  In fact, what are the two organs that you cannot live without? The head and the heart.  You can do without almost everything else, at least temporarily.  The heart is every bit as important as the head.  This "subordination" that Paul is talking about is not that of a slave, it is that of order, for the good of the family.  If everyone in the family knows their role, embraces it, and carries it out, the family will be successful.

What happens if, in a tire company, a manager decides that he wants to make brake pads, and carries out his desire.  If this did not come at the directive of the CEO, this could jeopardize the companies' capitol and the company could be left in ruin.  We recognize the value of having someone in charge of the decisions in the business world.  Why not also in the family?  We see what happens when husbands and wives both make decisions independent of one another.  A separation happens.  To use a slightly colored phrase: "too many chiefs and not enough indians."  This will almost always result in some form of family disfunction.

One might say that the wife knows more about the children and should make decisions concerning them.  This is perfectly true in the sense that the wife has keen insights into many matters of the family, not least of which is dealing with the children.  The successful family, however, is the one where that is communicated to the husband, and a plan of action can be decided upon and put into place.  It isn't that the wife can't or didn't make decisions for herself, it is that the authority of the father is greater in this regard.  In my own family, no matter how much discipline is given by my wife, the kids know that when dad's discipline get here, we mean business.  It is't harshness or severity, but rather order.  Kids recognize the visible head of authority in the family whether or not that has been communicated to them.

Let's not leave out the husbands though.  While verses 22-24 cause the most uproar, notice how much more Paul talks about the role of the husband, verses 25-32, at least twice as much.  What does he say about them?  Husbands Love your wives.  Husbands sitting in the pews think, "nice, looks like my job is done here, she needs to be a bit more subservient."  Those men are too quick to take in the first sentence and turn off the attention.  It ends with "as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her..."  Woah.  Christ got up on a cross for his love for the church.  And, he expects the same from the husband.  Yes, husbands still have work to do.  We need to be ready and willing to get up on that cross for our wives.  Are we ready for that?  I have work to do...  We all have work to do...  This isn't the "love" feeling, this is the love of the will and the love of self sacrifice, very different from the mere feeling of affection that many of us like to think is love today.

There is another interesting aspect to this.  According to marriage counselors the number one complaint of husbands about their wives is "she doesn't respect me," and the number one complaint of wives about their husbands is "he never chooses me."  The part that is interesting is that in Ephesians 5, Paul actually gives us a remedy to each of these problems.  For the husbands "she doesn't respect me," Paul says to wives "be submissive to your husbands."  That is, respect him and his role as the head of the family.  For the wives "he doesn't choose me," Paul says to the husbands, "love your wives."  That is, love her so much that you always choose her.

It shouldn't be news at all that men and women still have the same marital problems after 2,000 years.  Men are men and women are women.  We can't change our nature.  In fact, we can be even more bold.  Men and women haven't changed since the beginning!  The very beginning!  I wrote a post about this earlier called Adam's Sin of Omission.  Adam was present when the serpent tempted Eve.  Adam was silent.  In other words, Adam failed to lead.  He failed to die for his spouse, Eve.  It was Adam's sole responsibility to lead Eve away from sin, and he failed.  St. Paul offers us the solution to all marital problems; a way to leave the ways of sin and love one another; a way for a husband to lead his family to Christ.

The Acts Church

I was listening to a Christian radio station the other day (in the week following Easter) and I heard an interesting comment by the K-Love DJ.  They were talking about what it would have been like to live during the time of Jesus.  That it would have been exciting to see the empty tomb.  Before I get to the quote, I must interject that while it would have been nice to witness the extraordinary events of the resurrection, I don't think it would have been a good time to live at all... Christians celebrated Mass underground not just for fear of persecution, but fear of death!  We live very comfortable, naive lives now, especially here in the US.  I digress...

Back to the quote.  The guy said, "How cool would it have been to be part of the 'Acts Church'?"  This took me back for a moment.  The Acts Church? Did he mean that it would be cool to be part of the Church that Jesus founded?  If so, this is a very interesting admission from a protestant radio station.  Jesus didn't say "don't forget to read my book!"  He founded a Church, which I suppose they are calling the Acts Church, from the book, The Acts of the Apostles.  Moreover, what if that Church still existed?  I wonder if protestants have ever thought about this.  Did the Acts Church survive?  If so, how would you tell?

I have heard people on the radio say that the Church that is "closest to the scripture" will be the real, true, Church.  However, I think a better measure would be that of "closest to the Acts Church."  There are two things are important to note here.  First, in the Acts Church, there wasn't a bible.  We are only call it the Acts Church because we have the bible.  The the same bible that was written after the Acts Church existed.  Think about it, the Acts Church was not a "church of the written word," but rather a book of the "oral tradition."  It couldn't be closest to the scripture, because there wasn't any scripture (of the new covenant).   Second, is it possible to know what the Acts Church looked like?  Sure, you can get quite a lot about it from Acts, but you can get even more from the Church fathers.  Those who wrote about the Church before the Canon of Scripture was established late in the 3rd century.  Read books by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and many, many others.  Even some of the later ones like John Chrysostom, Jerome, Agustine, and Gregory the Great.  You will notice one thing... There is a Church that looks a lot like the Acts Church 2,000 years ago.  It is the Catholic Church!

If you don't believe me, just look at what the Church claims.  The number one claim is that it is "Apostolic".  That is, there is apostolic succession.  Every pope, bishop, and priest can trace his predecessor back to Peter, the first Pope, the one whom Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom and build his Church upon.  That Peter.  If you want a list, here you go: List of Popes.  It cites the popes and years of reign from the first pope, Peter, all the way to the 266th pope, Francis.  In John 14:16 Jesus says, "I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever."  The spirit of truth was not only promised to the Apostles, but to their successors through all generations.  If the Catholic Church isn't the Acts Church, then Jesus didn't fulfill his promise.

So, when I heard him say "How cool would it have been to be part of the Acts Church," all I could think was "YES!  It is cool indeed!"  

Heresy is in the "not".

One of the tricky things about Christianity is all of the versions that are out there.  They all seem to have similar beliefs and it can be hard to separate exactly what each one is trying to say.  The first thing we need to discuss is a little logic, and vs. or.  The words "and" and "or" are actually very technical terms.  The word "and" is used to describe an intersection and the word "or" describes a union.

If you go to an ice cream shop and tell the attendant "I would like chocolate and vanilla". If they just give you a scoop of chocolate, you will be unhappy.  If they just give you a scoop of vanilla, you will not be happy.  Only a scoop of each will satisfy your demand.  Thus, the word "and" describes a scenario where both conditions must be met.

If you say to the attendant, "I would like chocolate or vanilla," you will be happy with a scoop of chocolate, and you will be happy with a scoop of vanilla, because you said "or".  However, this is where people often get confused; How would you feel if the attendant gave you a scoop of both?  Did they meet your request?  Yes! They actually did.  There are two kinds of or, an exclusive or and an inclusive or.  The exclusive or means "one, but not the other".  The inclusive or means "one, or the other, or both".  Whether the "or" in question is inclusive or exclusive is largely taken from context.

Here is an example of a clearly inclusive or:
"The students that are in math or physics classes this term."
This would be all of the students who are in math or physics or both.

Here is an example of a clearly exclusive or:
"Two movies are playing at 7pm tonight, do you want to see Spider-Man or Super-Man?"
Clearly you can't be in both theaters at the same time, so it is one or the other.

In general, I think as a society we get a bit confused because we usually only see the "or" as being exclusive. I don't have any study to back this up, but think about whether you have said "or both" before.  The "both" is implied with the "or" and is logically speaking, completely unnecessary.  Since we feel like we need to say "or both" if it is indeed an option, I think this is strong empirical evidence that we are an exclusive-or culture.

This all applies directly to Christianity.  Take, for example, Faith and Works.  The protestant community teaches that we are saved by Faith alone, and that works are not necessary.  This argument is exacerbated by the misunderstanding of the word "and".  It is often viewed as an exclusive or.  If it isn't faith alone, then it must be work alone.  But that isn't what Catholics are saying either.  Catholics believe that it is by Faith and Works.  Not just by faith, not just by works.  When we say "and" we really and truly mean both.

This point can be seen in many, many cases.  The interesting thing is that Catholics can largely agree with what protestants affirm.  It is what protestants deny that is the problem.  The problem is with the "not".  "Saved by Faith alone" can be re-stated as "saved by Faith, but not works".  So, we affirm the positive, but reject the negative.  In fact, most, if not all, heresies are of this form.  The misunderstanding of the "both-and" is prominent in protestant-Catholic dialogs.  Here is a list of "affirm but reject" statements by various ecclesiastical communities.  For each and every one of them, the Catholic teaching is "both-and".  We affirm the affirmation, but reject the "not".

• We are saved by faith, but not by works.
• Jesus was a man, but not God.
• Jesus is the redeemer, but not divine.
• Communion is a memorial, but Christ is not present.
• Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist, but not bodily.
• Scripture is authoritative, but not tradition.
• Jesus is our mediator to the Father, but not the Saints.
• The world can be understood by Science, but not philosophy and Religion.
• It is about relationship, not religion
• Jesus is the Son of God, not the son of Mary
• We believe in the New Testament, not the Old
• The Eucharist is a community meal of thanksgiving, not a sacrifice.
• Creationism, but not evolution (or commonly vice-versa)
• God is merciful, but not just.

I say again... Each of these is a heresy to the Catholic faith.  The Catholic position on every last one of them, and many, many more, is both-and.

The communication begins to break down when a Catholic says "No" to one of these claims.  The feeling is that we believe that some version of the "opposite" must be true; that if it isn't (A and not B) it must be (B and not A).  However, we aren't arguing that, we say (A and B).  And, so I conclude by fixing the above statements to the Catholic view:

• We are saved by faith and by works.
• Jesus was all man and all God.
• Jesus is the redeemer and he is divine.
• Communion is a memorial and Christ is present.
• Christ is spiritually and bodily present in the Eucharist.
• Scripture and tradition are authoritative.
• Jesus and Saints (through Jesus) are mediators.
• The world can be understood by Science and philosophy and Religion.
• It is about relationship and religion
• Jesus is the Son of God and the son of Mary
• We believe in the Old and New Testament
• The Eucharist is a community meal of thanksgiving and a sacrifice.
• Creationism and evolution
• God is merciful and just.

Who says?!

In my first post, I said that I wasn't going to get into the history of why I am now Catholic, but as this seems to be a topic of continual discussion in my current studies, now is the appropriate time to tell some of it...

After I decided that God existed when I was about 18, I went searching for him.  I started with what was most familiar to me with my nominal presbyterian exposure, that is to say,  I started with the protestant denominations.  I went to several Churches and heard sermon after sermon (most of which turned out to be about tithing) all which claimed to "know what the bible meant."  But this caused some inner turmoil for me.  What did the bible mean?  They all understood that this book was the "law of the land," but if it was so clear, why did they interpret it in different ways?  How long had people been interpreting scripture the way they had?  And most importantly: Who SAYS?!?!  I mean, if it is so easy to understand, why doesn't everyone see it the same way.  If the Holy Sprit is truly in charge of making sure that we all understand the scripture properly, then the only conclusion is that we would all agree!  No, something was mightily wrong with this perspective.  To add to that, nobody ever seemed to be able to explain where on earth this book-of-books came from.  I mean, why were those books in there and not other books?  Again, who says?!?!

My then-girlfriend-now-wife and her family were Catholic, so I decided to give that church a fair shot at these questions.  I should mention that having been raised by a Presbyterian and an Agnostic, my spoon-fed views on the Catholic church were, well, not good; not good at all.  They were the birthplace of heresy and tyranny!  :)  But, as nothing else seemed to make sense, I thought they should be given a fair chance to explain themselves and address my questions.  The sermons (or homilies as they called them) were frequently about how the people of the day would have interpreted the day's readings and how that applied to us here and now.  Oh, and each day had it's own reading that was read everywhere in the world, so there was terrific unity. This community that they were a part of that was much bigger than a block-party.  I enrolled conditionally in RCIA (the rite of Catholic initiation for adults).  I could attend classes with no-strings-attached, if I wanted baptized, great, if not, that was fine too.  Sweet!  I get to hear from the horses mouth what all of their nonsense is about.  And so it began...

My biggest questions were addressed right away.  Apostolic succession and the bible.  The Church didn't claim to be the best interpretation of the bible, it claimed to be THE church that Jesus founded when he said to Peter in Matthew 16:18, "You are my rock, and on this rock I will build my Church."  He didn't write a book, he founded a church.  And the Catholics claimed to be THAT CHURCH!  This was a bold claim.  But, then came apostolic succession.  They had a list of popes, a genealogy if you will, that listed pope to pope, the handing down of the church and the "keys to the kingdom" from Peter all the way to John Paul II (at the time).  Holy Smoly!  Evidence?  What is this?!  They too had claims to the bible.  My protestant friends never told me (or maybe they didn't know, or didn't want to admit) that the bible was actually produced by the Catholic Church!  Go look it up for yourself.  It was in 382 AD at the council of Rome, held by Pope Damasus I, that the canon of scripture was formed.  This is actually public knowledge, but seems to be a better kept secret of Protestant communities.  The Catholic Church was the Christian church of old, and the protestant bible actually belonged to the Catholic church.  (Until they, i.e. protestants, changed it; which is another post for another day...)

The rest of the story can be left for another day.  The Church not only had answers to all of my objections/complaints/misunderstandings, but they were strong answers.  The bible, in some ways, is like the Constitution of the United States.  What would happen if the forefathers wrote the constitution and then left it up for everyone to interpret on their own?  Pandemonium.  So, what did they do?  They left someone/something in charge of interpreting it:  The judicial branch.  It is in their charge to keep the spirit of the constitution alive and tell everyone what it means.  The Magisterium of the Church is a lot like the judicial branch.  It is the living teaching of the Church.  It tells us how we should interpret the bible.  We can see this analogy break down pretty quickly as men run the judicial branch.  But do men run the church?  Yes, and no.  Men are the physical and visible head, but as Jesus said in John 14:16-17

"I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it.  But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you."

In short, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.  It is up to the Holy Spirit through the work of men to maintain the teachings of the Church and a proper interpretation of the bible.  When will the Holy Spirit leave the Church?  We go back to Matthew 16:18 "... and the gates of Jell shall never prevail against it."  Never.  The Holy Spirit didn't guide the Church until the Reformation in the 16th century.  He stays with it now and will stay with it until the end...

Adam's Sin of Omission

I am sure we are all familiar with the story of creation, and that of the fall.  In Genesis chapter 3 we have the story,

Now the snake was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” The woman answered the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’” But the snake said to the woman: “You certainly will not die! God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know good and evil.” The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

There are a couple of things I have learned that I want to point out.  First of all, in the first verse the devil says "You shall not eat...".  I don't know hebrew, but those that do have said that the "you" in this sentence is actually plural in Hebrew.  And so, if it were translated into a Texas accent it would say "Y'all should not eat..."  This is significant in the sense that Adam was present.  In most children's picture books, we see Adam off tilling the garden whilst Eve is conversing with the serpent.  But that isn't the whole truth.  Adam was there.  He was with Eve.  In verse 6 it said "... she took some of its fruit and ate it, and she gave some to her husband, who was with her..."  My bible did not have this part, but I am glad to see that the online version does have it.  The point is that Adam was there, and he didn't say a word.  As Eve was his bride, his silence was the first sin of omission as he did not stand up to protect her.

The next question is, what gives?  Why was Adam silent? I heard Dr. Pitre give a talk on his take on why Adam was silent and it was rather compelling.  What happens EVERY time an angel appears in the bible?  Here are some examples:

• Joshua 5:14: In this passage, an Angel appears to Joshua and he falls on the ground in worship.
• Isaiah 6:5: Two Seraphim spoke and the door shook and the house was filled with smoke and Isaiah said "Woe is me, I am doomed!"
• Daniel 10:2-21: Two things happen here.  An angel appears and only Daniel can see him, then "but great fear seized those who were with me; they fled and hid themselves, although they did not see the vision." The people who didn't even see the angel fled!!  Then when Daniel saw the angel he "fell face forward unconscious.
• Matthew 28:4: When the angel appears to the guards at the tomb, they were shaken for fear of him and "became like dead men," i.e. they fainted.
• Luke 2:9-11: When the angel Gabriel appears to Mary he says, "Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people."  Get that, the first thing he says is "Do Not Be Afraid."

What is the common theme of these passages: fear.  Whenever an angel appears, the people are afraid.  Now, who exactly is the serpent?   He is the evil one, Satan, the Devil, who was a fallen angel named Lucifer.  Of the 9 choirs, he was most likely from the choir of Cherubim.  The highest choir is Seraphim, and they praise God singing "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God of Hosts." (which we actually just looked at in Isaiah 6).  As Lucifer chose an existence that is eternally separated from God, I can't imagine that he ever said this.  Cherubim, on the other hand, are described as having knowledge of God.  And, as we just saw in Genesis, this is what the serpent knows all about...  Knowledge and pride are linked at the hip.

If we put these two concepts together, "fear of angels" and "the serpent was an angel", it isn't hard to imagine that Adam was scared!  Almost everyone else who saw an angel fainted!  We might ask, why didn't Adam just say out loud, "Hey God, this angel over here is bothering me."?  Have we ever acted contrary to God when we were afraid?  All. The. Time.  In fact, one could argue that all sin is rooted in some kind of fear.  Moreover, you can actually make a very good case that all sin is rooted in the fear of death in particular!  Just read the creation story again.  Remember the quote above "Y'all shall not die."

At the very least, I think we can sympathize with Adam at this point.  After all, we do the same thing day in, and day out.  But, we need to learn from that experience.  We need to remember that whenever we are face-to-face with temptation, we need to lean on the Lord for assistance; for it is written, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Philippians 4:13)

Aspect of the verb

Let's get a little "down and dirty" with linguistics.  Let's talk about aspect.  I am certainly not an expert, if you want a better explanation of this, do a google search.  I found this one, and I think it suffices:

http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/aspectterm.htm

The two important forms of verbs are the perfect and the progressive.  The perfect aspect describes events that have already been completed at a previous time (here the verb "have" is perfect).  The progressive aspect describes events that are ongoing; events that may have been taking place, but are not yet complete (ing is often an ending).

For a couple examples:
"I have completed a blog post on counting to 3." (have is perfect)
"I am working on a blog post about the aspect of a verb." (working is progressive)

We have a little trouble with this in English.  Lord knows my English knowledge is a work in progress.  Other languages have this too, Greek in particular.  The greek word for "repentance" is "metanoia".  And the word metanoia carries with it an aspect...  And its aspect is, progressive.  Before I get into what that means for us, lets talk about the following scenario of table behavior.

As anyone who has dined with a toddler will know, there is a common theme to their dining routine, standing at the table.  We adults recognize that standing on our chair is bad, not just for etiquette, but for safety!  We know that if a toddler stands on a chair for long enough, they will likely tip the chair over, or at the very least, fall off.  So, what do we tell them as responsible adults?  "Sit."  We may or may not use an exclamation point instead of a period if this is the second time, or third time, or fourth time, or....  What happens if the toddler sits down and then stands back up?  Technically speaking, they did what we commanded.  We said, "sit," and they sat.  But is that what we really meant when we told them to sit?  NO!  What we meant by the command "sit" was actually something more along the line of "Sit, and keep sitting until I tell you to stop!" (If you get to the point where you actually utter these words to the kid, it will always have an exclamation point).  What this means is that the verb "sit" is progressive.  We don't mean it with the intention that you get to be done following directions the moment you comply.  We mean something that is ongoing and continuous.

Back to metanoia.  If this verb is progressive, what will that imply?  When Jesus says, "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand."  It doesn't mean, "Repent, and then go about your business as usual."  It means "Repent, and keep repenting until I tell you to stop!"  Jesus doesn't command us to simply repent one time and then be "saved" forever.  He wants us to continually repent, and not stop.  This intrinsically implies that what we do really matters, otherwise we wouldn't need to keep repenting.  And so, we can rightly say,

I have been saved, (Ephesians 2:5)
I am being saved, (Philippians 2:12)
and if I endure to the end, I shall be saved. (Matthew 10:22)

If I endure to the end... That is, if I repent, and keep repenting until Jesus tells me to stop: Metanoia.

(Thank you to Fr. Richard Simon for the content of this post.  He talked about it in his homily recorded in the "He Must Reign" CD set.)

What is "The Kingdom" Jesus keeps talking about?

I heard a talk on time that posed the question, "What did Jesus talk about the most in his ministry?"  This was a curious question.  I've never thought too much about that.  Was it forgiveness? Being obedient? Following the commandments? Being merciful?  He talks about each of those a lot...  It turns out that the idea that he keeps bring up over and over and over again is, the Kingdom.  So, we would do well to study precisely what "the Kingdom" is.  If you are like me, the first mention of the kingdom that comes to mind is in the Lord's prayer:

"...Thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done..."

This prayer is present in both Matthew's and Luke's gospel.  My early impression of the Kingdom was that of Heaven.  When we say, "Thy Kingdom come," my imagination takes that as "it ain't here yet".  But that word is a little tricky.  If someone says "Come on over," we think of this as a future tense.  But how would you ask if it happened?  "Did you come over?"  We use the same word to reference the past as well.  Here, the verb "come" depends more on the noun than the action.  Weird.  Anyway, more on that in a bit.  To make a long story short, I have always thought that "The Kingdom" was simply, Heaven.  And that if we die before Jesus comes back, we will go to the Kingdom.  But ultimately, when we say "Thy Kingdom come" I thought we were really referring to the 2nd coming.  But is this really the case?

What are some other things that Jesus compares the Kingdom to in Matthew's gospel?  Here are a few:

• A man who sowed good seed in his field (Mat 13:24)
• A mustard seed (Mat 13:31)
• Leaven (Mat 13:33)
• Treasure hidden in a field (Mat 13:44)
• A merchant in search of fine pearls (Mat 13:45)
• A net (Mat 13:47)

A couple of these stand out with a particular problem...  Can these happen in Heaven alone?  Look at the sower.  The sower tosses out some seed and, "the enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat."  Wait, what?  Can the devil put bad people in Heaven?  Absolutely not.  Hmmm.  The kingdom is like leaven, toss in a little and it will leaven the whole batch.  Wait, is all of Heaven not yet holy?  Why would the leaven need to spread?  The kingdom is like a net, it will be tossed into the sea and catch a bunch of fish, but the fishermen keep the good and toss out the bad.  But, there are only "good fish" in Heaven.  I only mentioned a few, but almost all of them have some sort of element that suggest that there is evil around the Kingdom.  The Kingdom can't simply be Heaven alone, it must have some sort of earthly component.

What would that earthly component be?  If we look around the world and start to search for the Kingdom we might see something interesting.  Scott Hahn put this quite well, "Where ever the King is, there is his Kingdom."  Yes!  So, the "Kingdom" is actually the Church.  When we put on this lens, the parables make perfect sense.  There are weeds among the body of Christ.  The Church was put into the world like leaven so that it would spread to the whole world.  The Gospel is proclaimed through the Church and it will catch the "good fish".  The Church is a treasure that we are meant to find.

Scott Hahn's quote actually went one step further, "Where ever the King is, there is his Kingdom; and where ever the Eucharist is, there is the King."  (dramatic pause).  The first time I heard this, I had to pick my jaw up off of the floor.  Wow.  The Kingdom is the Church.  Christ gave us the Church and he didn't leave us at all.  He is with us each and every day in the Eucharist.  In the mass, we participate with all of the heavens in our worship of Christ.  Heaven touches earth.  The earthly kingdom and the heavenly kingdom are united through the most blessed sacrament of the altar.

Looking back at the Lord's prayer, with all of this in mind, we can see that "Thy Kingdom come" doesn't mean "let us into heaven".  It means, "Lord, come to us in the Eucharist".  The kingdom has been coming ever since the last supper, and it will keep coming every time we celebrate mass, over and over again.  Look in the book of revelation (chapters 4-6 in particular).  John's vision is a MASS!  This IS the Kingdom of God.

Can Catholics Count to 3?

I had always wondered about how Catholics said that Jesus died on Good Friday and then rose on Sunday.  That is clearly 2 days later.  One day after Friday is Saturday, two days after Friday is Sunday and 3 days after Friday is Monday.  All of the prophecies said "on the 3rd day" or "in 3 days".  It is important to note that (at least in my opinion) "in" and "on" mean different things.  To me, "in" would fit in the "tomorrow is 1 day later" category, and "on" says that we count "today is day 1".  English is hard...

Ultimately this didn't pass the "who cares" test.  Whether he died on a Thursday and rose 3 days later on Sunday or died on a Friday and rose 2 days later on Sunday, didn't compel me to look into it any more.  The day of the week didn't matter to me as much as whether it DID happen.  But, nevertheless, it has been a lurking question in the back of my mind, just not one I devoted any thought to.  So, here is the solution that I stumbled upon that actually solve both problems:

1) He definitely died on a Friday:
In Luke 23 we see that they were in a hurry to get Jesus down off of the cross and into a tomb.  They had to do it before nightfall because it was going to be the Sabbath.  That is, Saturday.  So, he clearly died in a Friday, because the Sabbath began on Friday evening (as we would call it today).  Their days went evening to evening, not midnight to midnight.  So, it was definitely Friday.

2) "On the 3rd day".
This is the one that I had a little trouble with.  The bottom line is that "3 days and 3 nights" was an idiom for "at least part of 3 days".  After all, "night" was the beginning of the next day.  We can see a precedence for this Esther chapters 4 and 5, when she fasts for "3 days" but starts late on the first day and quits early on the 3rd day.  If you fasted for any part of one day, then that counted as a "day".  The bottom line is that they started counting at 1 not 0.  Tomorrow was day 2 of today, not 1 day after today.  That wasn't the language that they used; they counted the 'of', not the 'after'.  Just think 12 days 'of' Christmas.  Day 1 is the first day and day 3 is the 3rd day of Christmas.

Put all of that together and you get: Jesus died on Good Friday, and rose again on the 3rd day, Sunday, the Lord's day.  It goes to show you that it is important to read the bible from the perspective of a person reading it in the first century.  I can imagine them reading the lyrics to a Michael Jackson song and thinking, "Wait, it is good to be 'bad'?"