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.