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.
Friday, October 3, 2014
Saturday, August 30, 2014
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:
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
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
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.
"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.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
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...
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...
Sunday, August 17, 2014
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")...
- 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.
- 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...
- 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?
- 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? :)
- 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)
- 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.
- With the priest facing away, you couldn't tell what he was saying. You were "out of the loop".
- 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.
- The chanted songs were beautiful.
- 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"...
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
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):
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.
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.
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.
Monday, June 2, 2014
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)