Barque of Peter

Sorry for the delay...

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 23:43:00 +0000

It's been an over-timey couple of weeks at work recently, and the current snowstorm has made it rather late as I sit down to finish up this week's entry. Hopefully I'll have it up later tonight...

The Gateway to Life in the Spirit

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 01:53:00 +0000

When I was an Evangelical Protestant, it was commonplace to ask whether a person was "saved", or "born again". Since Jesus told Nicodemus that "You must be born again" (John 3:3), one's answer to that question was clearly a matter of eternal importance! Yet if a non-Christian did want to be born again, the typical Evangelical response was to lead the person in a short prayer (similar to that which a Catholic prays at the end of Confession--the Act of Contrition) which is known in Protestantism as "the Sinner's Prayer." Often such occasions followed powerful preaching at a worship service, where people seeking salvation were invited to raise their hands or come up to the front for prayer. This is how I first came into a relationship with Jesus as a five-year-old child. My Pentecostal tradition, like many Evangelical denominations, didn't include baptism in the "born again" equation. For them, it was just a symbol of one's commitment, having no intrinsic power. If someone taught that baptism was necessary, it was only because "Jesus commanded that we should do it," even though no one seemed particularly sure why.

As I wrote in my last post, I came to discover that the Bible is very clear about what baptism is, what it does, and why it is necessary for salvation. Paragraph 1213 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church sums up the meaning of this sacrament well:

Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

Using this paragraph as the jumping-off point, we'll examine Scripture and the Church's teaching to better understand this first of sacraments, which, having been received in infancy for most Catholics, is perhaps too much forgotten in our day-to-day lives. First, we will examine baptism as the primary sacrament of initiation, and our divine adoption as God's children. Second, we shall explore the remission of sins that is effected in Baptism. Third, we will discuss how baptism incorporates us into the Church and her evangelistic mission, and see how the valid Trinitarian baptisms of our separated brethren make them truly Christian and that this truth should inspire us to work towards true unity. Finally, we will apply what we've learned to better be able to renew our baptismal promises and more fully live them as we move into the Easter season.

(I know I promised this article last night, and it was mostly written, but time got away from me, and I had to postpone it until today. I'll be posting the rest on Tuesdays as promised.)

God bless,
Gregory

Baptism Now Saves You

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:00:00 +0000

Christ himself died once and for all sins, the upright for the sake of the guilty, to lead us to God. In the body he was put to death, in the spirit he was raised to life, and, in the spirit, he went to preach to the spirits in prison. They refused to believe long ago, while God patiently waited to receive them, in Noah's time when the ark was being built. In it only a few, that is eight souls, were saved through water. It is the baptism corresponding to this water which saves you now—not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience given to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has entered heaven and is at God's right hand, with angels, ruling forces and powers subject to him. (1 Peter 3:18-22, NJB)

Have you ever read the Bible and had the experience of coming across something there that you'd never noticed before, and which made you sit up and say "huh!"—something which completely rocked how you understood your faith? Growing up as a Protestant, I was encouraged to read the Bible every day. In Sunday School, we were taught to memorise verses from the Bible—most of which I can still recite, or at least paraphrase (the multiplicity of English translations makes it hard to get the exact wording right). When I was 15, I undertook to read the whole Bible from cover to cover, even, just so I could say that I had done so. When I went to Bible college, I decided to do so again in an effort to really figure out what was true about Christianity—since part of my going to Bible college, or at least the particular school I went to, was an attempt to discern which "brand" of Christianity was the true one. This particular journey through Scripture was the one that really spun me around, as I ran into several passages that, as above, made me sit up and say "huh!"

The second reading from yesterday's Mass was perhaps the most staggering example of such a passage. Most of the others (like, say, John 6) I'd read and tried to work out an interpretation that still jived with my old theological views, but when I got to the passage that said "baptism...saves you now", I had no rationalisation at hand to reinterpret the plain meaning of the text for my Protestant theology that taught me that baptism was just a symbolic act expressing our commitment to Jesus, and nothing more. Despite the fact that I'd read the entire Bible before (well, except for those "Catholic" books, of course), this passage from 1 Peter hit me with such force that it seemed as if I'd never read that verse before! Rocked by the straight-forward, plain sense of this verse, I had no choice but to entirely rethink my beliefs about baptism, and to study that issue further. And, of course, if my beliefs on baptism could be so at odds with the clear teaching of Scripture, what else was I wrong about, that I'd just taken for granted? These questions were the very initial steps on my journey that led a little over three years later into the Catholic Church.

Of course, 1 Peter 3:21 isn't the only passage in Scripture to teach about the saving efficacy of baptism. Jesus Himself teaches that unless one is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God (cf. John 3:3-5), a sentiment echoed very closely by St. Paul in Titus 3:5, when he writes, "it was not because of any upright actions we had done ourselves; it was for no reason except his own faithful love that he saved us, by means of the cleansing water of rebirth and renewal in the Holy Spirit."

Many years after the events of that night where I truly saw 1 Peter 3:21 for the first time, I was sitting at the mechanic's waiting for some work to be done on my car, and writing a blog post, when an elderly woman, herself waiting for her car to be ready, asked me what I was doing. "Writing about theology," I answered her. "Oh!" she exclaimed. "You must be a Christian!" "Yes, I am," I answered. "I'm a Catholic." She was rather taken aback, and said that she was a Baptist (ironically), and that she didn't think that Catholics were Christians because of all their man-made traditions. I told her that I believed that nothing that Catholics believe is contrary to anything in Scripture, and that Scripture at least implicitly teaches the Catholic teachings. She immediately put forth the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation as proof that the Church teaches contrary to the Bible. Smiling, I showed her 1 Peter 3:18-22, and that it plainly says that Baptism saves us. "I've never seen that verse before!" she said, and asserted that it must only be in our "Catholic Bibles." I asked her what translation she preferred, and when she said (as expected) the King James Bible, I loaded it up on my laptop, and showed it to her. We were unable to continue our conversation that day, as her car was ready to be picked up (much to her relief, it seemed), but I'm sure it gave her much to think about.

It certainly reminded me that no matter how well we think we know God's Word, there's always more that He can teach us if we're open to listening, and re-examining what you thought you knew.

A few years back, I wrote a series of articles examining the Church's teachings on the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Each Tuesday of this Lent, starting tomorrow, I'll be posting a similar series on the Sacrament of Baptism. Stay tuned!

God bless,
Gregory

Proving the Existence of God: St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Five Ways” Examined (Part 5)

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:00:00 +0000

Conclusion: Psalm 14:1

G.K. Chesterton once said, "If a thing is worth doing, it's worth doing badly." I hope that I have been able to contribute some small amount to a greater understanding of St. Thomas' proofs of God's existence. Where my eloquence and erudition have failed, I hope the grace of God and the open minds of my readers will supply my defects.

Christopher Hitchens, the famous atheist, opined regarding the Five Ways, that even if they did prove the existence of a deity, that the bulk of the work still lies ahead of us. The proofs show us that a God exists, but they don't tell us anything about that God. To this I make two replies: the first is simply to agree with Mr. Hitchens. After all, St. Thomas' proofs for God are written in Part 1, Section 2, Article 3 of his expansive three-volume Summa Theologica. While the arguments take about a page to articulate, the work of coming to know Who this God is, what He is like, and how we are to relate to Him goes far beyond simply establishing that He exists. Certainly no one could claim otherwise. Atheists, of course, don't deny the existence of a particular God, however, but the possibility of any God, whatsoever.

On the other hand, however, the Five Ways do still reveal a lot about the identity and characteristics of the God which they set out to prove. From the first three Ways, we see that God is omnipotent, the effective power behind all existence and action in this universe. From the Fifth Way, we recognise that God is also omniscient, the supreme Intelligence. The Fourth Way, though, really fleshes things out, for in it we find that God is entirely simple, not made of parts, but utterly One. That unity is infinite, and contains within it intrinsically all perfection—all truth, beauty, goodness, life, justice, wisdom, and all the perfections there are, which, when brought to their infinite fullness are all one, and are God. Perfect, infinite truth is perfect, infinite goodness, which is perfect infinite beauty, which is perfect, infinite Love. As such, the logical conclusion of the Five Ways does not merely bring us to an abstract notion of a deity, but very and specifically close to the deity that the Christians worship.

That God is infinite, moreover, rules out the possibility of polytheism, because if there is more than one God, then they cannot be infinite. There must be some limit that distinguishes them. Since God is infinite, He must be the only God. Anything finite must be a lesser, created being, or simply a fiction. St. Thomas' proofs leave no other option. This is why I said in my introduction, that the atheist's accusation that he and I are both atheists, the only difference being that he believes in one less God than I do, but for the same reasons, is completely false. Because of reason, I believe in an infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing, loving God. No others need apply. My belief in this God is the reason I disbelieve in all the others.

I consider this series on St. Thomas' proofs for God to be a challenge, a dare, even, to those who don't believe in God. This past year, I finished off my Bachelor of Religious Education. One of the last classes I took was a philosophy class. The professor, a Protestant, made the claim that God could not be proven to exist—that we could only take His existence on faith, though a faith aided by reason. All the proofs, according to him, were only probabilities. St. Thomas Aquinas felt otherwise about his Five Ways. He believed that his proofs had the same weight that all logical or mathematical proofs have—and I, for my part, agree with him. Incidentally, so does the Catholic Church, which at the first Vatican Council, made it a binding truth of faith that reason alone could bring a person to a sure knowledge of the existence of God (Canon 1 On Revelation).

So the challenge is this: are you open-minded enough to reason through the arguments, and to follow reason to whatever conclusion it arrives at? What arguments can be brought against the Five Ways? Evolution doesn't work against the Fifth Way, of Design, because the very laws of nature themselves did not and could not evolve! Positing an eternal universe that proceeds from "big bang" to "big crunch" to "big bang" again, as Dr. Stephen Hawking suggests, does not work to overthrow the Second Way, of Causality, since St. Thomas himself held that the creation of the world at a particular moment in time was a matter of divine revelation, but not necessitated by philosophy or reason itself. Since his arguments specifically exclude revelation as a factor, they are equally valid whether the universe began yesterday, or whether it has always existed. Adding millions of years of slow processes to the equation, or removing time altogether from it, does nothing to affect the arguments.

Moreover, each argument stands alone. They do not combine to make a cumulative case for the probability of God's existence. Each demonstrates His existence independently of the others. Cumulatively, they reveal more of Who that God is, as we saw above. But thinking you have shot down one argument still leaves four more that must be dismantled as unreasonable or objectionable in some way in order to escape the inescapable conclusion. That is the challenge. That is the dare.

The thing is, there is a difference between St. Thomas' proofs for God, and a mathematical proof such as 2+2=4. The difference is not in their respective solidity or grounding in reason. The difference is in the subject matter. One has very little personal investment or responsibility in how he lives his life if 2+2=4. There is significantly more to consider about how one's life is lived, however, if God exists. The conclusions are equally inescapable, but they are not equally liked. The only way to avoid the logical conclusions of the Five Ways is to pointedly ignore them or attempt to shout them down. One's lack of faith in God is not the result of a well-reasoned thought process. It is the result of a choice, the choice to close one's eyes, stick one's fingers in one's ears, and shout "Non serviam!"

To quote Chesterton again, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

Prove me wrong!

(Category: Theology Proper: God in general.)

Proving the Existence of God: St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Five Ways” Examined (Part 4)

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:00:00 +0000

Argument 5: God Exists, Because Science!

It seems "the thing" these days is for atheists to pit science against religion (regardless of whether a particular atheist happens to know the first thing about either science or religion!). From ragging on a fictionalised and misunderstood account of the Galileo controversy, to claiming that somehow evolutionary theory is incompatible with biblical faith, to actual scientists like Dr. Richard Dawkins railing against religion, somehow the catch-all phrase "science" seems to trump and negate religious beliefs. I can't count the amount of internet memes that I've seen that try to undermine religious faith, "because, Science!" The irony, of course, is that "science" can't disprove God, because, well, science!

I've mentioned how St. Thomas' proofs for God take an observable fact about the world, and using inductive reasoning, goes from the effect to the cause. Perhaps this comes as a shock to any atheists reading these articles, but that's how science works! In fact, that science works at all is itself proof of God's existence! It is, essentially, St. Thomas' Fifth Way.

The argument runs thus:

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. (Summa Theologica, I.2.3.Resp.)

In other words, there is order to the world. Things act and react in specific ways under specific circumstances. For example, when potassium comes in contact with water, an explosion results as the potassium unites with the water to form KOH. This reaction generates a substantial amount of heat, which reacts with the hydrogen atoms that are released during the chemical reaction, and the oxygen in the atmosphere. (The formula for this reaction is 2K + 2H2O = 2KOH + H2.) Now, this reaction always happens. It's a testable, repeatable fact of nature. It's a scientific fact. Any other particular scientific fact will do to illustrate the first premise of St. Thomas' argument, whether it be water boiling at 100° Celsius, or metals conducting electricity. The fact that things always act a certain way shows that they are specifically ordered to that end.

Now, the above example of potassium reacting with water is an example of an inanimate object, a thing with no intellect, always acting in a specific way. The potassium does not choose to react with the water, igniting the hydrogen. It cannot decide instead to simply dissolve in the water, or to float upon it lazily. It must react with the water to produce the explosive results. It is ordered to such an end. It is intrinsic to what it means to be potassium that it reacts with water. If there were no water for the potassium to react with, it would still contain this predisposition. But since a relation can only exist where both parts exist, how could a predisposition be present in potassium to react with water, if there is no water present? The only way is if such a relation existed in a mind prior to its existence in reality. In other words, order implies intelligence. Since potassium and water, and the like, don't have minds, they must have received their order from somewhere else, from a supreme Intelligence.

We cannot simply account this to random, blind chance, because it always occurs. Neither can we simply say, "That's just the way it is," because that simply ignores the very interesting fact that it is. No, there is an order to the world—if there wasn't, we couldn't have science at all! There are scientific laws, such as laws of chemistry, that govern how things behave in the world. But the question must then be asked, where did these laws come from? A law is itself the result of a mind, of an intelligence.

The intelligence that orders potassium to react with water, must be an infinite intelligence—not simply because of how many other things it has ordered in this vast universe, but because if it were a finite intelligence, such as yours or mine, it would contain potentiality. It would be subject to change. It would itself require a cause and an order. As we've seen from the previous arguments, this would involve a greater intelligence to form the limited intelligence, and we return to the problem of an infinite regress, or of a supreme intelligence—that is, to a being that does not possess intelligence, but which is intelligence, an unchanging, all-knowing, ordering intelligence—and this is God.

Before we leave off, let us be perfectly clear about St. Thomas' Fifth Way. It has often been considered as the same as the modern concept of Intelligent Design—that is, that it looks as though the world was designed in all its intricacy, and design implies a designer. Where the argument from the appearance of design in something like an eye could theoretically be the result of blind chance over millions of years, and thus only lends probability to the existence of God, St. Thomas' argument from design undercuts the possibility of blind chance and millions of years, for potassium did not evolve to react with water, even if a fish once grew legs and crawled out of the water to escape the explosion resulting from the potassium reaction. The design referred to in the Fifth Way was present from the foundations of the world, inherent in the very existence of the things ordered by it. If it's true that the creatures of this world are simply the result of millions of years of blind chance evolving through the struggle for survival, this evolutionary process could itself have only been possible because of an ordering in nature towards evolution, that itself was not the result of evolutionary processes, because that would mean again the absurdity of a potentiality causing its own actuality—that is, that the evolutionary process caused the evolutionary process. If such a process exists (and it's beyond the scope of this article to address that question), it could only exist because an infinite Intelligence designed it into the fabric of the universe.

No matter how you look at it, the fact that we can study the world, predict results, and formulate laws of nature proves that there is a God. Because, science!

(Category: Theology Proper: God in general.)

Proving the Existence of God: St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Five Ways” Examined (Part 3)

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 05:00:00 +0000

Argument 4: I Imperfectly Understand this Argument—Therefore God

We come now to St. Thomas Aquinas' Fourth Way, the argument from goodness, or perfection, or degrees—however you want to sum it up! Here is the argument in St. Thomas' own words:

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. (Summa Theologica, I.2.3.Resp.)

I'll admit from the get-go that this argument is the one that I understand the least, and is the one that seems to be least understood by most people. Some think it's a variation on the ontological argument, but St. Thomas rejects the validity of the ontological argument because it is an a priori argument, essentially arguing for God's self-evidence. St. Thomas rejects the idea that God is self-evident and that we can have any a priori knowledge of God. His Five Ways are specifically a posteriori arguments for precisely this reason. People who criticise the fourth way as a species of the ontological argument, then, have simply misunderstood it. Others try to refute or dismiss it because they think that it is based on a notion of Plato's "forms", or because St. Thomas' example of fire being the maximum form of heat is bad science—in other words, it's based on a bad cosmology and therefore irrelevant. In fact, Thomas' limited Mediaeval understanding of the natural sciences is irrelevant to the argument, as are Plato's forms (which St. Thomas didn't even believe in). A final criticism is foisted by those who wish to claim that perfection is a subjective term that exists only in the eyes of the beholder. I wish I could simply dismiss this critique as patently false, but unfortunately it has the current fashion of the world behind it, and thus actually needs a reply. Of course, even the most postmodern of math professors will still mark you wrong if he asks you, if you have five apples, and you eat two of them, how many do you have left, and you answer with, "My perception of the quantity of remaining apples may be different than yours, and we cannot determine it with certainty, because everything is subjective." I believe, after grappling with this argument, that its difficulty lies in the fact that it requires a bit of lateral thinking to really grasp, rather than the more direct, linear arguments of the first, second, third, and fifth ways.

Like the first three arguments, the fourth argues from the real world back to God, but unlike the first three, which deal with realities experienced by the senses, the fourth deals with realities as experienced by our intellect (which is why it is so often conflated with the ontological arguments for God). There are real things in this world that are not objects, that are not physical, but they are just as real: things like love, justice, truth, beauty, life, etc. It is with regard to these things that the fourth way is formulated.

That is, there are certain qualities of perfection that things possess. These qualities can be divided into "limited perfections" and "unlimited perfections". For example, all animals possess the quality of "animality"—that characteristic that makes all animals, animals, be they ants or dogs or elephants or humans. All animals possess "animality" in its fullness, and nothing that is not an animal possesses animality. This is why it's called a "limited" perfection. It is limited to those things which possess it. Moreover, one cannot possess it in part. Something either is an animal or it isn't. Something is either a plant or it isn't. The particular quality is intrinsic to the thing that possesses it.

On the other hand, there are qualities that are unlimited—that is, they are shared across the different types of things in varying ways. These qualities include goodness, truth, beauty, existence, life, etc. While they are possessed by different types of things, they are not possessed in the same way by all things. In other words, a tree, a car, a bird, and a man can all be "good", but a tree is not good in the same way that a bird or a car is. As well, they are not possessed to the same degree by all things, or even by things of the same kind. One man can be healthy and robust, while another frail and sickly. These men possess the unlimited perfection of Life to varying degrees. Moreover, over the course of his life, a man may grow more and more in goodness, or wane in the same.

Now, if something can be possessed in varying degrees, and if things of different kinds can possess these qualities, it shows that qualities such as life, goodness, and truth are not intrinsic to the thing itself. A man possesses his humanity intrinsically, but he possesses goodness extrinsically—in other words, the unlimited quality does not belong to him, but he has received it from somewhere.

The recognition of degrees of unlimited perfections points to the fullness of that perfection somewhere. We realise that insofar as something has a limited degree of a particular perfection, there is a corresponding degree of potential perfection. As such, there must be a fullness of that perfection, otherwise it isn't a perfection. These unlimited perfections must be possessed in their fullness, so that everything that possesses these perfections extrinsically and partially may receive them from somewhere, otherwise we come to the same absurdity which we saw in the last article—that of a potentiality causing its own actuality. An absence of perfection cannot cause actual perfection, any more than the acorn can simultaneously be the oak tree. If in created things these perfections are only extrinsic, received from somewhere else, they can only be received from where they are possessed in their fullness. There must be some entity that does not have a degree of goodness, a degree of beauty, a degree of truth, a degree of life, a degree of existence—but which intrinsically is goodness, is beauty, is truth, is life, is existence itself. Moreover, where each unlimited perfection is possessed in their fullness, goodness is beauty is truth is life is existence. That which is intrinsically perfect is intrinsically simple, not composed of parts, but simply is. This being of absolute perfection is what we call God.

(I owe a great debt in writing this article, and finally coming to even a meagre understanding of the Fourth Way, to the late Thomistic scholar, Fr. Walter Farrell, OP, and his explanation in the first volume of his Companion to the Summa. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1945.)

(Category: Theology Proper: God in general.)

Proving the Existence of God: St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Five Ways” Examined (Part 2)

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:00:00 +0000

Arguments 1-3: Hey Look! Stuff! Where'd It Come From?

At the end of the introduction, I mentioned that St. Thomas bases his arguments upon facts of the world around us—facts that are undisputed by modern science. There are a number of websites out there that try to dispute with Thomas claiming that his Five Ways are mired in an Aristotelian concept of the universe, and therefore aren't valid because of the advances of modern science. However, the very genius of Thomas' arguments are their very simplicity. The principles espoused in them are not dependent upon a particular understanding of the universe, be it Aristotelian, Cartesian, Newtonian, or that of contemporary physics. Things still move and change, they still cause effects, they still depend on other things, they still vary in degrees of perfection, and they still act toward definite ends. Our understanding of how these things occur may be more developed and nuanced, but the philosophical conclusions that result from them are just as inescapable.

The first three arguments, or ways that St. Thomas puts forward, are the argument from motion or change, the argument from causation, and the argument from contingency. Their formulation is very similar, so that they are often viewed as being the same argument phrased differently. This isn't entirely accurate, because each one begins with a different starting point. They do dovetail, however, and so we will treat them together.

The arguments run essentially thus:

1) When we look at the world around us, we see that things a) move or change, b) have a cause, and c) are contingent, that is, not inherently necessary.

2) Something else must be responsible for the effects listed in #1.
i) There must be a) a reason for a change, b) a cause for an effect, and c) something necessary to be contingent upon.
ii) A thing cannot a) move itself, b) cause itself, or c) be contingent upon itself.
iii) There cannot be an infinite regress of a) movers, b) causes, or c) necessary things.

3) There must be therefore a) an unmoved mover, b) an uncaused cause, and c) a truly necessary being. This we call God.

Clear as mud?

Let's look at it a little more closely—specifically the notion of motion (or change). What do we mean when we say that a thing doesn't move itself? I moved myself to type this up, didn't I? Well, no, not exactly. Typing this article is the result of a long process of different things acting upon me, and my acting in response. I could hardly detail the myriad chain of events that lies between my fingers pressing keys and the letters instantaneously appearing on the screen. And my fingers move because of the muscles that pull them, which are linked to my nervous system, which receives signals from my brain in response to my mind telling it to type as I try to find ways to express St. Thomas' arguments in a convincing and compelling way. This act of thinking came about because I realised I had a lot to write and a deadline to have it written by. This deadline was imposed by the fine owners of Catholic Chapter House, namely Theresa, after a series of conversations about when best to run the series, which was prompted by my proposal to write such a series, which was prompted by my reading a couple of good books on the subject, such as, for example, Fr. Thomas Crean, OP's God Is No Delusion. I read that book because I bought it from Catholic Chapter House the day I volunteered with David selling books at a local parish. I was prompted to buy and read that book because of conversations with my brother and a good friend of mine, both of whom are atheists. And on and on the chain of causality goes. Every action, every movement, every change requires an explanation. It requires a cause, a mover. Something prompted me to talk to my friend about why he doesn't believe in God. Something prompted him to stop believing in God. Every change is precipitated by another change. Every effect is precipitated by a cause, which is itself an effect of another cause. Every thing in this universe is somehow dependent upon something else for its existence. If we had the time, the ability, and the attention span, we could trace each cause back to the ones before. In doing so, there are two possibilities: 1) the chain of causality would go on forever into eternity past; or 2) we would come at last to a First Cause, an Unmoved Mover, and a Truly Necessary Being.

When reading rebuttals of St. Thomas' Five Ways in preparation for this article, the most common was simply, "Why can't we have an infinite regression?" Apparently, many suppose that the denial of infinite regression is predicated upon our inability to comprehend infinity, and therefore we, and St. Thomas, concluded that it must not be true. This objection is baseless for two reasons: First, St. Thomas (and all Christians) are advocating for an infinite God, so clearly our issue isn't with the concept of infinity. Second, it's not about our inability to comprehend infinity. The problem with an infinite regression is simply that nothing would actually happen. For an infinite regression to work, a thing would have to cause itself. In fact, everything would have had to cause itself and everything else caused by it, all the way down the chain of events. In technical terms, a thing would have to be both potential and actual at the same time. Consider the case of the acorn and the oak tree. The acorn will grow up to be a mighty oak, but while it is but an acorn, it is only potentially an oak tree. It is actually an acorn. Only when it is an oak tree will it actually be an oak tree, but then it will no longer be an acorn. That's what change is. If infinite regression is posited, it is the same as saying that the acorn is the oak tree, that it essentially causes itself to be the oak tree—that there is no distinction between the potential and the actual. This is manifestly absurd. In the chain of cause and effect, there must be a cause that was itself not caused, a mover that was itself not moved, a truly Necessary Being.

This is why, in part 1, I stressed that God is not a thing like every other thing. The Unmoved Mover, the Uncaused Cause, the Necessary Being, is unlike every other thing in that there is no potentiality in God. He is entirely and eternally Actual, and is, indeed, pure Act. He does not change, because He is always acting, always moving, always causing, always Necessary. This is why the flippant question, "What caused God?" has no meaning, because God has no potentiality. Nothing caused God. God is. As we saw last time, He is the very ground of existence. He is existence itself. He is not simply the beginning of a long line of cause and effect, either, but is immediately and unchangingly the efficient cause of every effect. He is the One Necessity upon which every contingent thing depends.

(Category: Theology Proper: God in general.)

Proving the Existence of God: St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Five Ways” Examined (Part 1)

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 05:00:00 +0000

Introduction: God does not Exist

Over the course of this week, I'm going to be attempting to explain St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs for God, which he laid out in the Second Question of the First Part of his masterpiece, the Summa Theologica. I firmly believe that the reasoning behind St. Thomas' arguments are unassailable and convincing to the open-minded, even though they are often dismissed as a relic of the ignorant Middle Ages. It has been my experience in conversing with my atheistic friends, that St. Thomas' Five Ways have not been dismissed because they aren't true or compelling, but because they are misunderstood and misrepresented by the counter-arguments. This being the case, I hope to offer my own small attempt to explain and clarify St. Thomas' arguments, in order to show how compelling they actually are.

Before we begin our look at the Five Ways, however, I feel some introductory groundwork needs to be laid. The first thing to get absolutely clear is that the atheists are right. God does not exist. Shocked? Let me explain. When the typical atheist one encounters on the internet makes the claim that God does not exist, he usually does so with some dismissive and derogatory reference to a "sky fairy" or the infamous "flying spaghetti monster", or some other description that makes God out to be a "thing" like a rock or a tree or a dog or a person or an alien—something that could be categorised into a species or a genus. And of course, the Catholic should absolutely agree with the atheist on this point: God is not a thing. God does not "exist" in that sense. Rather, according to St. Thomas, God is being, God is existence. God is not something among all the other things in this world. Rather, the world is, instead, "within" God, so to speak. So away with "sky fairies" (unless we're actually going to discuss elemental spirits of the air, about which I am completely agnostic) and "flying spaghetti monsters" (about which I am perfectly disbelieving). Someone once tried to be clever by suggesting that he and I were both atheists; he just happened to believe in one less God than I did, but he didn't believe in my God for the same reasons that I didn't believe in Thor or Zeus or Amaterasu or Krishna, therefore, on what grounds did I believe in my God, but not those gods? The fatal error is the same. I don't believe in those gods for precisely the same reasons that I do believe in the Christian God, and that is because those gods are indeed "things" which, if they were real, would be capable of being lumped into a species or genus. No God but the God of Abraham claims to be the very ground of being, the foundation of all reality. The difference is absolute—it is greater than the difference between a man and an ant. It is more like the difference between a man and a child's crayon drawing of an ant.

Briefly, the Five Ways of proving God are these:

The Way of Motion: Things move and change. Things are put into motion by something else. There cannot be an infinite regress, therefore there must have been an initial unmoved mover. This we call God.

The Way of Causation: All things have an immediate or efficient cause. The efficient causes cannot go back infinitely, so there must be a first, uncaused cause. This we call God.

The Way of Contingency: It is not necessary for any particular thing to exist, they are, rather, contingent things. All possible things at one point did not exist. If all things are merely contingent, then at one time things did not exist. There must be a necessary essence that caused all contingent things to be. This we call God.

The Way of Goodness: Things have degrees of perfection—varying participation in goodness, truth, beauty, life, etc. Degrees imply the existence of a maximum of perfection. This maximum perfection we call God.

The Way of Design: Things in this world are ordered to particular ends. Even unintelligent things are predisposed to this and not that. This order inherent in even inanimate things necessitates an intelligence to direct it. This intelligence we call God.

The beauty of the Five Ways are that they begin with a plain fact about the world around us—one that is undisputed by scientific findings—and then, based on this simple, universal fact of the world, St. Thomas shows that there is no possible explanation for this fact other than God.

Because the first three Ways are very similar, we shall examine them together tomorrow. Wednesday, we shall look at the Fourth Way, Thursday at the Fifth, and we will offer concluding remarks on Friday.

(Category: Theology Proper: God in general.)

Back to Business

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 18:55:00 +0000

So I've had something of a lengthy hiatus from active blogging. Been working and busy and blahblahblah no one cares. I've also been regularly contributing to the blog over at Catholic Chapter House. Apparently, when someone is foisting a deadline on me, I can be rather punctual (mostly). Check it out sometime!

I recently broke my ankle, and have been busy recovering from that, and not working, and having otherwise no real excuse to not be blogging. My job was already coming to an end on December 13, because the factory was relocating to the States. So prayer, discernment, and the love and advice of my wife have led me to pursue a career in art and preaching under the Doubting Thomist: Art & Faith banner. So that site will eventually morph into a real and professional website, and this blog will *probably* be subsumed under that. Haven't figured that all out yet.

My goal for this blog from very near to the beginning (once it ceased being simply a debate-outlet) was to write at least one article under every heading and sub-heading in the margin Index, and then just let it be. So I'm planning to really tackle that, in order that Barque of Peter can be an apologetic resource page rather than an actively updated site. It may then revert to a debate-outlet if I ever start engaging anyone in debates again...

Anyway, to kick off the finalisation process, I'm going to be posting a series of articles that I wrote this past summer for Catholic Chapter House explaining and defending St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Proofs for God's Existence (the Five Ways). And we'll go from there!

God bless,
Gregory

The Rosary (all my writings collected here)

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Fri, 03 May 2013 02:05:00 +0000

As this is the Month of May, dedicated by the Church to the veneration of Mary, I thought I would put together all the links pertaining to my writings on the Rosary for easy access (including my recent posts over at Doubting Thomist)

How to Pray the Rosary
I Shall Not Walk Alone (A step-by-step instruction is in the middle of this post, including links to the words of the various prayers)

The Mysteries

Like Any Good Mystery, You Just Can't Put It Down

The First Joyful Mystery: The Annunciation

The Second Joyful Mystery The Visitation

The Third Joyful Mystery The Nativity of Jesus

The Fourth Joyful Mystery The Presentation in the Temple

The Fifth Joyful Mystery Finding Jesus in the Temple

The First Luminous Mystery The Baptism of Jesus

The Second Luminous Mystery The Wedding at Cana

The Third Luminous Mystery The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God

The Fourth Luminous Mystery The Transfiguration

The Fifth Luminous Mystery The Institution of the Holy Eucharist

The First Sorrowful Mystery The Agony in the Garden

The Second Sorrowful Mystery The Scourging at the Pillar

The Third Sorrowful Mystery The Crowning with Thorns

The Fourth Sorrowful Mystery Jesus Carries His Cross

The Fifth Sorrowful Mystery Jesus' Crucifixion and Death

The First Glorious Mystery The Resurrection of Jesus

The Second Glorious Mystery The Ascension of Jesus

The Third Glorious Mystery The Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost

The Fourth Glorious Mystery The Assumption of Mary

The Fifth Glorious Mystery The Coronation of Mary

The Rosary as the Christian's Journey of Faith
Joyful Intentions
Luminous Intentions
Sorrowful Intentions
Glorious Intentions

Why Pray the Rosary?

Letting God do the Work (Quoting a dear friend's comments about praying the Rosary, and giving the Blessed Virgin's own promises to those who pray it, as revealed to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan de la Roche)

Through Her Eyes (A Rosary CD recommendation and further thoughts on praying it)

The History of the Rosary

The History of the Rosary (Part 1) (The development of the Rosary from the Early Church to the Ministry of Saint Dominic)

The History of the Rosary (Part 2) (The development of the Rosary from the Ministry of Blessed Alan de la Roche until the Present day)

Sentire Cum Ecclesia: Principles for the Interpretation of Scripture (Part 3)

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:00:00 +0000

Principle #3: The Bible Is An Ancient Book

When those tasked with the role of correctly exegeting Scripture set out to undertake it, or when the laity seeks to understand the Word in the deepest manner possible, it must be remembered that the Bible is an ancient book. As stated in the introduction, the oldest portions were written likely 3500 years ago, and the most recent portions still are 1900 years old. They were written in cultures quite removed from ours, and in ancient dialects of foreign languages. All these factors influence how well we are able to understand even a modern translation of the text. Compounding the difficulty is the fact that the text of the Bible is itself comprised of 73 different volumes composed by over 50 authors in a variety of literary genres. Thus, when interpreting Scripture, the exegete must pay close attention to the genre and its conventions, according to the time and culture of the writer and how that genre was employed in his contemporary situation, in order to establish, as much as possible, what that author meant when he originally wrote the text.

A variety of tools and methods are available to the scholar of Scripture in his task of exegesis. Primary among them is the historical-critical method, which seeks to approach the biblical text as a literary document, placing it within its cultural context and examining the history and the language of the text in order to ascertain the meaning. This method has been useful for drawing out nuances in the text that are subtle and often overlooked by readers millennia removed from the authors. As such, it has been indispensable for understanding the literal meaning of the text.⁸

Nevertheless, some cautions are in order when utilising the historical-critical method. First, it must be used without philosophical presuppositions which contradict the Christian faith.⁹ Second, exegetes must be aware of the limits of this method, as well as understand and give allowance to the fact that the biblical text's meaning does develop over time, through God's own providential guidance.

Along with the historical-critical method, other methods of scriptural exegesis should be used, such as those literary methods based on particular contemporary context, the social sciences, and Tradition, which can all yield various insights into the meaning of the biblical text.¹⁰ The role of Apostolic Tradition, treated in Principle #2 of this paper as being another facet of God's Word, serves also as a link to the historical context of the Scriptures, and, if embraced, can both aid and inform the historical-critical method, as well as providing a clear, retraceable path to the meaning intended by at least the New Testament authors, as that meaning itself was passed down to their successors. The guidance of Tradition also indicates how the biblical meaning can and has developed over the centuries in an organic fashion, and will help the exegete discern whether his interpretation of the text flows in an organic fashion in the line of development, or if it represents a break with the text's meaning, introducing a novel and aberrant doctrine.¹¹ In the end, interpretations arrived at through the practice of these scientific exegetical methods are valuable to the degree which they coincide with the Catholic Faith as guarded and taught by the Magisterium, who, as said, have the final authority in matters of doctrine and interpretation.

Principle #4: The Bible Is One Book

The final interpretive principle of the interpretation of Scripture, is to recognise that the Bible represents a unified whole. Even though it is a collection of 73 different books from various times and authors, written in various genres, to various audiences, nevertheless, the One Spirit who guided the inspiration of the Scriptures, and who continues to guide its interpretation, has woven throughout the Scriptures a single, integral meaning.¹² That is, all of Scripture points to and teaches about Christ and His redemptive work.

This single purpose and meaning of Scripture is conveyed to the reader in both letter and spirit. That is, there is a literal meaning to the text, as discerned through methods such as the historical-critical method, but there is also a spiritual meaning in Scripture. These two senses of Scripture are complementary, and together flesh out the unity of the whole of God's revelation. The Spiritual Sense of Scripture is divided further into three senses—the allegorical sense, the moral sense, and the anagogical sense, each focussing on a different aspect of Faith. The allegorical sense shows forth Christ and His saving work throughout each passage of Scripture. The moral sense draws forth our response, instructing us how to live justly according to Christ's saving work. Finally, the anagogical sense points us to our ultimate destiny in Christ.¹³ Each passage of Scripture contains both the literal sense and the spiritual sense, weaving the whole together into a multi-layered tapestry of theological truth.

In discerning the spiritual sense of the text, however, one does not simply take off on flights of fancy. Often throughout the history of the Church, this has been the case—especially in the early centuries. However, fathers of the Church such as St. Jerome and St. Augustine brought about a corrective teaching, which theologians such as Hugh of St. Victor and St. Thomas Aquinas further elaborated on in the Middle Ages.¹⁴ They taught that all spiritual interpretations of the Scripture must be based, first and foremost, upon the literal sense, as its foundation.¹⁵ Thus, the spiritual sense illuminates the overarching plan of God throughout history that may, when viewed solely in a literal way, appear disparate, disjointed, and disorienting. The spiritual sense highlights that God writes history the way people write books, infusing everything with meaning in order to convey His truth and love.¹⁶

Conclusion

In the end, the faithful reader of Sacred Scripture must approach the Bible with a reverence for it befitting God's revelation. In interpreting the text, he or she must attempt to discern the meaning that God Himself intended, relying on His Holy Spirit. By using literary science and historical-critical methods, one is able to approach the literal meaning of the words of the text, and yet, behind those words, and with that literal meaning as its foundation, there is a spiritual sense that gives unity and a fullness of truth to the Sacred Scripture. Above all, the reader of Sacred Scripture must approach the Bible in the context of the Community of Faith, recognising in humility that it is not his task to interpret the Bible so as to develop his theology, but that this approach is precisely backwards, and reinvents the wheel, so to speak. Rather, in submission to the Sacred Tradition handed down from the Apostles, the reader of Scripture must recognise that ultimately the task to authoritatively interpret Scripture falls to the Magisterial body of the Bishops of the Church, to whom Christ Himself gives that sacred duty. These principles of interpretation are the safeguard by which our reading of Scripture will lead us to a greater understanding of the Truth of Christ, and prevent us from novel, heretical ideas and by these, further rending the unity of Christianity. As Pope Benedict XVI reminds us,

Saint Jerome recalls that we can never read Scripture simply on our own. We come up against too many closed doors and we slip too easily into error. The Bible was written by the People of God for the People of God, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Only in this communion with the People of God can we truly enter as a "we" into the heart of the truth that God himself wishes to convey to us. Jerome, for whom "ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ", states that the ecclesial dimension of biblical interpretation is not a requirement imposed from without: the Book is the very voice of the pilgrim People of God, and only within the faith of this People are we, so to speak, attuned to understand sacred Scripture. An authentic interpretation of the Bible must always be in harmony with the faith of the Catholic Church. He thus wrote to a priest: "Remain firmly attached to the traditional doctrine that you have been taught, so that you may exhort according to sound doctrine and confound those who contradict it".¹⁷

__________
Notes

8. Williamson, Peter S. Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church." (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 2001), accessed November 28, 2012, http://archive.salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/churchandbible/magisterial/principlesinterp.cfm2.htm. V, 15.

9. Williamson, Peter S. Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture. V, 15.

10. Williamson, Peter S. Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture. V, 16.

11. Compare, for example, Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (accessible online at http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/).

12. Hahn, Dr. Scott, Scripture Matters: Essays on the Bible from the Heart of the Church. (Steubenville: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2003), p. 7.

13. Hahn, Dr. Scott, Scripture Matters. Pp. 5-6.

14. Hahn, Dr. Scott, Scripture Matters. Pp. 14-15.

15. Hahn, Dr. Scott, Scripture Matters. Pp. 17-18.

16. Hahn, Dr. Scott, Scripture Matters. P. 2.

17. Benedict XVI. Verbum Domini, 1, 30.

__________
Bibliography

Benedict XVI, Pope. Verbum Domini. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2010. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

Hahn, Dr. Scott. Scripture Matters: Essays on Reading the Bible from the Heart of the Church. Steubenville: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2003.

Newman, Bl. John Henry, Cardinal, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Public Domain. http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/

Paul VI, Pope, Dei Verbum. (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1965). http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Wansbrough, Henry, gen. ed. The New Jerusalem Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

Williamson, Peter S. Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church." Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 2001. http://archive.salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/churchandbible/magisterial/principlesinterp.cfm2.htm

(Category: The Scriptures: Scriptural Authority)

Sentire Cum Ecclesia: Principles for the Interpretation of Scripture (Part 2)

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:00:00 +0000

Principle #2: The Bible Is The Church's Book

Flowing out of the hermeneutic of faith, that recognises that Scripture is, indeed, God's own revelation, one must hold that revelation and interpret it within its proper context. That is, the Bible is, first and foremost, a religious and liturgical text. Pope Benedict summed this up in his Apostolic Exhortation, Verbum Domini:

Here we can point to a fundamental criterion of biblical hermeneutics: the primary setting for scriptural interpretation is the life of the Church. This is not to uphold the ecclesial context as an extrinsic rule to which exegetes must submit, but rather is something demanded by the very nature of the Scriptures and the way they gradually came into being. "Faith traditions formed the living context for the literary activity of the authors of sacred Scripture. Their insertion into this context also involved a sharing in both the liturgical and external life of the communities, in their intellectual world, in their culture and in the ups and downs of their shared history. In like manner, the interpretation of sacred Scripture requires full participation on the part of exegetes in the life and faith of the believing community of their own time."³

As such, the Scriptures cannot be divorced from the ecclesiastical context that is their proper home. It is this divorce that is the fundamental problem with the hermeneutical process of those who believe in and practice the Protestant tenet of Sola Scriptura. Rather than allowing the ecclesiastical context to inform one's reading of Sacred Scripture, adherents to this doctrine reverse the process, and judge the Bible's proper context—the Church and its teachings—by their understanding and interpretation of the Bible. Yet, once one rejects the Church's role in authentic interpretation of the Scripture, one is left with no sure footing upon which to base one's interpretation, save his or her own cleverness and the uncertain hope that the Holy Spirit is indeed guiding his or her interpretation correctly. Hoping for divine guidance, however, once one has divorced the Bible from the Church, His bride, is at best presumptuous, for here as elsewhere, God hates divorce (cf. Malachi 2:16).

That the Magisterium, that is, the authoritative teaching office of the Church (composed of the Bishops), itself has the authority to interpret the Scripture, as opposed to any and every individual person, should be self-evident. After all, it was the Apostles who were given the authority of Christ Himself to preach the Gospel. It was they who appropriated and incorporated the Old Testament into the message, showing how it foretold Christ, and how He fulfilled the Old Testament. It was the Apostles (and their close companions) who composed the New Testament. It was their successors, the Bishops, the inheritors of their Apostolic ministry, who preserved and passed on their teaching and compiled the Scriptures into the Canon that we today call the Bible.

Let us note here, though, that the teachings of the Apostles, passed on to the Bishops, were not limited to what would be canonised as the Bible. Sacred Scripture is one facet of the Word of God, and while central and integral, is incomplete without the rest of the Sacred Tradition. In fact,

there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.⁴

Scripture itself bears witness to this fact when, for example, St. Paul refers to the traditions he received, and which he passes on. Note specifically his words in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (emphasis mine). In his previous letter to the Thessalonians, Paul goes so far as to equate this word-of-mouth preaching with God's Word (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13). Whether or not the Apostles wrote down their preaching in eventually-canonised Epistles or Gospels, their words were God's Word, which authority Jesus promised to them (cf. Luke 10:16). That is not to say that the Bishops, as the successors of the Apostles, have the ability to put forth any new revelation from God—His public revelation was complete in Jesus, and ended with the Apostles. But it is the Bishops who have the authority to draw upon that deposit of faith and interpret it in each generation's particular circumstances.

This being the case, on what grounds does one come to the conclusion that those who preached, passed on, and compiled the Faith of the Apostles are not thereby the rightful interpreters of that Faith as contained in the Scriptures? As Pope Benedict again says:

Moreover, it is the faith of the Church that recognizes in the Bible the word of God; as Saint Augustine memorably put it: "I would not believe the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church led me to do so". The Holy Spirit, who gives life to the Church, enables us to interpret the Scriptures authoritatively. The Bible is the Church's book, and its essential place in the Church's life gives rise to its genuine interpretation.⁵

As such, the Catholic understanding of God's Word, and its preservation and proclamation, is more stable and trustworthy, based as it is in historical continuity from the time of the Apostles, and having for its foundation the promises of Christ. Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterial Authority of the Church comprise the "threefold cord" which "is not quickly broken" (cf. Eccles. 4:9-12).

In fact, not only are the Bishops as a college (in union with the Bishop of Rome) the rightful interpreters of the Scripture, they are the only authoritative interpreters. In the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, promulgated by the Second Vatican Council, it is stated:

[T]he task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.⁶

This is not to say that the Christian reading the Scriptures has no role in interpreting them. Everyone reading any text automatically must engage in interpretation. However, the responsible, faithful Christian must be willing to submit his or her understanding of the Scripture to the teaching of the Church. And the Church herself allows significant leeway. Each passage of Scripture has not been dogmatically defined, and truths are readily mined from those glorious pages. But the ideas drawn forth must never contradict the Deposit of Faith, as was once and for all handed down (cf. Jude 3). The Second Vatican Council, in fact, encourages the laity to study the Scriptures, in the same document that reserves the right to interpret them for the Magisterium:

The sacred synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful, especially Religious, to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the "excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:8). "For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." Therefore, they should gladly put themselves in touch with the sacred text itself, whether it be through the liturgy, rich in the divine word, or through devotional reading, or through instructions suitable for the purpose and other aids which, in our time, with approval and active support of the shepherds of the Church, are commendably spread everywhere. And let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together; for "we speak to Him when we pray; we hear Him when we read the divine saying."⁷

__________
Notes

3. Benedict XVI. Verbum Domini, 1, 29 (himself quoting Pontifical biblical commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (15 April 1993), III, A, 3: Enchiridion Vaticanum 13, No. 3035). (Emphasis in original)

4. Paul VI, Pope, Dei Verbum. (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1965), accessed November 28, 2012, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html, II, 9.

5. Benedict XVI. Verbum Domini, 1, 29.

6. Paul VI, Dei Verbum. II, 10.

7. Paul VI, Dei Verbum. VI, 25.

(Category: The Scriptures: Scriptural Authority)

Sentire Cum Ecclesia: Principles for the Interpretation of Scripture (Part 1)

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:58:00 +0000

So we have confirmation of the words of the prophets; and you will be right to pay attention to it as a lamp for lighting a way through the dark, until the dawn comes and the morning star rises in your minds. At the same time, we must recognise that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them (2 Peter 1:19-21, NJB).¹

Outline

-Introduction

-Principle #1: The Bible Is God's Book

-Principle #2: The Bible Is The Church's Book

-Principle #3: The Bible Is An Ancient Book

-Principle #4: The Bible Is One Book

-Conclusion

Introduction:

Written between 3500 and 1900 years ago, by over 50 different authors from all walks of life, from the richest of kings to the poorest of peasants, recounting fantastical and miraculous stories in ancient languages according to the customs and traditions of ancient cultures, ultimately compiled about 300 years after the last portion had been written, the Bible nevertheless holds a universal appeal to scholars and laypersons alike. It is, of course, the religious text for the more than two billion Christians throughout the world (as well as the first part being the Sacred Scriptures of the Jews, and the entirety being revered as sacred by the world's Muslims as well as other pseudo-Christian religions). The Bible's enduring popularity as a work of devotional literature as well as a literary text to be studied academically is understandable in light of this. For those who hold the Bible to be a sacred religious text, this study of the Scriptures seeks to understand God's own self-revelation to humanity, so that humanity may then respond to Him in order to know, love, and serve Him as He desires.

This desire to know God, and to understand His revelation to humanity, necessitates that the Scriptures be studied with the intent of ascertaining what they truly mean. If the Bible is God's self-revelation, what, exactly, was He revealing about Himself? This task of understanding is further complicated by the reality of the languages, the cultures, and the times in which the Bible was written, and how distant those languages, cultures, and times are from contemporary North American society. One cannot, in light of this, easily pick up the Scriptures and expect to fully comprehend everything correctly or immediately. Various principles must be practised in order to effectively discern from the text of Scripture the true revelation of God. In order to derive the greatest fruit from the study of Sacred Scripture, one must a) recognise its ultimately divine authorship and seek God's own help in reading and understanding, b) read the Scriptures in union with the context of Sacred Tradition, c) seek to understand the text based on literary principles, and d) interpret each part in connection with the whole of the revelation.

Principle #1: The Bible Is God's Book

For the believing community, the Church, the Bible is recognised as divinely inspired. Scripture itself attests to this in 2 Timothy 3:16, which says, "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright." While it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a suitable apologetic for the inspiration of Scripture, briefly it can be summed up thus: that Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, founded His Church and gave it the gifts of His authority, indefectibility, and infallibility. As an exercise of His divine authority, that same Church compiled the documents that became the Canon of Scripture, declaring that these had been written under the direction of the Holy Spirit by the prophets and the Apostles. As such, those who read and study the Scriptures must approach them as divine writings (albeit in human language), or they will fall short of the full and correct interpretation of the text. The first principle of Biblical Interpretation, then, is to approach Scripture with a "hermeneutic of faith",² that is, prayerfully and with full and active participation in the community of faith.

__________
Notes

1. All Scripture quotations are taken from The New Jerusalem Bible, Henry Wansbrough, gen. ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1999).

2. Benedict XVI, Pope. Verbum Domini. (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2010), accessed November 28, 2012, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html, 1, 31.

(Category: The Scriptures: Scriptural Authority)

The Art of Grace: A Biblical Study of Ephesians 2:1-10 - Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:00:00 +0000

Application: Our Way of Life

Dr. Sinclair Ferguson, whose understanding of Sola Fide we have taken as representative of the majority of Evangelical Protestants,²⁵ and which has taken the brunt of the criticism in this essay, however, is for the most part correct when he asserts,

[T]he doctrine of justification is central. Not only is the article the standing or falling of the Church, but also of the standing or falling of the Christian. Probably more trouble is caused in the Christian life by an inadequate or mistaken view of this doctrine than any other. When the child of God loses his sense of peace with God, finds his concern for others dried up, or generally finds his sense of the sheer goodness and grace of God diminished, it is from this fountain that he has ceased to drink. Conversely, if we can gain a solid grounding here, we have the foundation for a life of peace and joy.²⁶

While he is himself guilty of perpetuating an erroneous understanding of Justification, foreign to the Gospel and contrary to St. Paul's teaching in Ephesians 2:1-10, Ferguson's claim that an erroneous or inadequate understanding of Justifcation will lead the Christian to lose his sense of peace, his concern for others, or his wonder at God's goodness, is indeed true.

As to the first effect, one who believes in Sola Fide may find he has a sense of peace, but it is a false peace based on a false premise. The falsehood cannot satisfy indefinitely. Scripture is too clear on the matter. Believing a false doctrine will lead to doubts and disillusionment.

As to the second effect, one who believes that his salvation is dependent upon his faith, without any need for good works born of love (cf. Gal 5:6), will indeed find his concern for his neighbour waning. Perhaps in a very good person, the grace of God will work so as to foster care and concern for others in spite of that person's erroneous understanding of Justification, but certainly not because of it. The temptation to sloth is far too strong, especially when there is no real motivation to overcome it.

As to the third effect, one must inquire as to which view of Justification presents a greater, more loving God—the one who merely imputes a foreign righteousness to the sinful person by means of a legal fiction, or the One who carefully and artistically recreates the sinful person in Christ Jesus, so that they, through grace, are infused with righteousness, in which they are enabled, by grace, to persevere until they themselves are seated with Christ in heaven?

The application of Ephesians 2:1-10 is clear: that in thanksgiving to God for His great grace in Christ Jesus, we must turn from our sinful ways with His help, and united with Christ, make the good works that God has prepared for us, a vital part of our way of life. And in light of the erroneous understanding of the doctrine of Justification, we must be willing to correct that error, proclaiming the truth in love (cf. Eph. 4:15), so that all people might have the opportunity to glory in the great riches of God's grace, and through faith in Jesus Christ, walk in that newness of life.

Conclusion

While Ephesians 2:8-9 have often been used, out of context, to put forth an erroneous view of Justification, it is clear that, when studied carefully in its context, the doctrine of Sola Fide is not actually taught by St. Paul. The truth of the matter is that God's grace is even more amazing than the Reformers realised. God Himself calls us to cooperate with Him in His artistic masterpiece of salvation!

__________
Notes

25. Ascertaining a definitive understanding of Sola Fide that is applicable to all branches of Protestantism is nigh impossible, since the understanding of this “pillar” of the Reformation varies from denomination to denomination. Luther, for his part, believed a version of Sola Fide that was, in fact, very similar to the Catholic understanding, and the denomination that bears his name was able to sign a "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" with the Catholic Church in 1999. Those following the Calvinist tradition are themselves divided on issues of the depravity of man, and on whether the saved person can lose his or her salvation through sin, while those of an Arminian bent affirm that one can indeed lose one's salvation. Dr. Ferguson, as represented in Dr. Ankerberg and Dr. Weldon's article, in the opinion of this author, portrays the doctrine of Sola Fide in terms that line up with the most vocal, if not the largest, strains of Evangelical Protestantism.

26. As quoted in Ankerberg, Justification. Grammatical errors in Ankerberg's article are corrected for ease of understanding.

__________
Bibliography

Ankerberg, John and John Weldon, The Doctrine of Justification. http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/Salvation/Salvation%20PDF/salvation-justification.pdf.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. New York: Image, 1994.

John Chrysostom, Saint, "Homily 4 on Ephesians", Church Fathers. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230104.htm.

Just, Felix, SJ, PhD, Eight Tips About Canonical Arrangement. http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT_Canon.htm#Arrangement.

Ladeuze, P., STD, "Epistle to the Ephesians", Bible Study: New Testament Books. http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/articles/Epistle_to_the_Ephesians.

New American Bible. New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1992.

Pope, Hugh, OP, STM, "St. Paul's Epistles", Bible Study: New Testament. http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/articles/St._Paul%27s_Epistles.

Slick, Matthew J. "Total Depravity", Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. http://carm.org/dictionary-total-depravity.

Thayer, Joseph Henry, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Public Domain, 1868. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm.

Thomas Aquinas, Saint, Commentary on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. Albany, N.Y.: Magi Books, 1966. http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/Eph2.htm#3.
Thomas Aquinas, Saint, Summa Theologica. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2111.htm.

Wansbrough, Henry, gen. ed. The New Jerusalem Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

Watson, Gregory, "Council of Trent: Canons on Justification", Barque of Peter. http://barqueofpeter.blogspot.ca/2006/11/council-of-trent-canons-on.html.

(Category: Soteriology: Justification)

The Art of Grace: A Biblical Study of Ephesians 2:1-10 - Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:00:00 +0000

Examining Ephesians 2:1-10

As stated, among the handful of passages to which Protestants point in order to make their case for Sola Fide, Ephesians 2:8-9 takes centre stage. Let us examine, then, whether these verses, in context, support the Protestant or Catholic understanding of justification.

After celebrating in a hymn of praise the salvation wrought for us in Christ Jesus (1:3-14), and then praying for the churches to whom he is writing, that they would come to a greater understanding of their salvation, and the power that God has worked in them through Christ (1:15-23), St. Paul begins in chapter 2 to briefly explain what that amazing work of salvation entailed. He begins in verses 1-3 to describe the state of the unsaved person afflicted by Original Sin and dead in his own sins. In verses 4-7, he describes how God, through His grace, brought the unsaved soul to life in Christ. Finally, St. Paul describes our response of faith, and how it cooperates with God's grace, in verses 8-10. Let us take these each in turn.

Dead in sin: Ephesians 2:1-3

¹And you were dead, through the crimes and the sins ²which used to make up your way of life when you were living by the principles of this world, obeying the ruler who dominates the air, the spirit who is at work in those who rebel. ³We too were all among them once, living only by our natural inclinations, obeying the demands of human self-indulgence and our own whim; our nature made us no less liable to God's retribution than the rest of the world.

Verse one describes the person without God's grace as dead spiritually. Indeed, this was what God warned Adam and Eve would happen if they ate the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2:16-17). Since their original sin, they lost the supernatural life of God within their souls—that grace which enabled them to live holy lives, integrating their intellects, wills, and passions, and orient them toward the ultimate good, who is God. Each successive generation was born without this vivifying grace, and thus subject to their passions, having their wills and intellects weakened, they lived sinful lives, incurring guilt and the wrath of God. Adam and Eve, having listened to the Tempter, subjected all of humanity to his domination (v. 2).¹¹

Let us take a moment here, however, to clarify what original sin did, and what it did not do. Contrary to the teaching of some Protestants, original sin did not absolutely corrupt mankind, nor cause them to become totally depraved.¹² While we are born without sanctifying grace, and thus are subject to disordered passions, and while we cannot of ourselves perform any meritorious acts in the sight of God—that is, without His grace, we cannot earn or achieve our own justification—nevertheless, we are all fundamentally good. While some would assert that even the good actions of the unregenerate person are themselves sinful without God's grace, this notion is absurd. The unsaved man's good deeds are not sinful, but good. They are simply not good enough.¹³ St. Paul teaches in this passage that it is those who have committed "crimes and sins" (v.1), "those who rebel" (v.2), that are under the rule of Satan. We are not guilty of actual sin unless and until we have actually committed sin. This rebellion, ἀπειθείας in the Greek, describes "an obstinate opposition to the divine will."¹⁴

This is important to remember when in verse 3, St. Paul states that "our nature made us...liable to God's retribution." This is not an affirmation of Calvin's doctrine of total depravity. It is not that our nature is inherently wicked or sinful, but that our nature, devoid of sanctifying grace, is prone to sin because of concupiscence—the disordered desires of the passions ("our natural inclinations"), which our wills and intellects, weakened by "obeying the demands of human self-indulgence and our own whim," cannot control, but rather are enslaved by them. We thus, being dead spiritually, cannot save ourselves.

Brought to life in Christ: Ephesians 2:4-7

⁴But God, being rich in faithful love, through the great love with which he loved us, ⁵even when we were dead in our sins, brought us to life with Christ—it is through grace that you have been saved—⁶and raised us up with him and gave us a place with him in heaven, in Christ Jesus.
⁷This was to show for all ages to come, through his goodness towards us in Christ Jesus, how extraordinarily rich he is in grace.

God has loved us exceedingly (v. 4), and this fact goes to show what was said above—that we cannot, therefore, be totally corrupt. For only something that is good is lovable. If we were absolutely evil by nature, and incapable of good, then even God could not love us. In fact, especially God, who is all good and all holy, could not love what was utterly depraved. Thus we see, by His love for us, that despite our sinful rebellion and opposition to His divine will, we nevertheless were good, in whatever small degree that goodness may have existed. God's love is seen to be "rich" to the degree that we were unlovable, however. The rebellion and the sinfulness of our souls so marred the goodness of the image of Himself with which He created us that it would be very difficult to see and to love. We know this particularly in how hard it is to love our neighbour. And yet God, "rich in faithful love", loved us still, and resurrected our souls with Christ (v.5). St. Paul then parenthetically states, "It is through grace that you have been saved." He thus sums up this resurrection power in the word, "grace". Since it is the cause of our salvation, we should consider its meaning.

Despite a lengthy and comprehensive examination of grace by Thayer in his lexicon,¹⁵ one most often hears the definition of grace (Gk: χάριτί in v.5) as simply God's undeserved favour, given as a free gift. This definition, as true as it is, is incomplete, as it stems from a purely forensic understanding of salvation: that is, that when we are justified, we are not actually made righteous, but rather, God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us.¹⁶ Thayer, however, notes in his definition, that biblically, Grace includes the "merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues.¹⁷ Indeed, we see from the passage under consideration that this χάρις of God includes more than His tender feelings toward us. Verses 5 and 6 state that this grace "saves" us. How? Though we were dead in our sins, our souls are "brought to life" with Christ, we are "raised up" with Him, and we are "given a place with Him in heaven". All these things, verse 7 tell us, were to show forth just how extraordinary God's grace really is.

Our resurrected souls are brought to life again with Christ, through His passion, death, and resurrection, but St. Paul is describing much more than the merits of Christ's saving act merely being reckoned to us—rather, they have an actual effect on our souls in grace—that is, new life! St. Thomas Aquinas, reflecting on the action of grace in the soul, describes five effects:

Now there are five effects of grace in us: of these, the first is, to heal the soul; the second, to desire good; the third, to carry into effect the good proposed; the fourth, to persevere in good; the fifth, to reach glory.¹⁸

For St. Thomas, all of these effects of grace make up our salvation, from God's prevenient action of calling to us and in so doing, healing our soul, in which consists our initial justification, through enabling us to seek the good and thus follow after it, until we come to our final justification and heavenly glory. It is this process that St. Paul sums up in Ephesians 2:5-6, when he describes the result of God's grace as bringing to life the soul, raising us up, and giving us a place in heaven, all with Christ. While St. Paul describes all these in the past tense, clearly they have not all happened yet. He places them in the past tense in hope, for we are saved by hope (Romans 8:24), but the grace of God unfolds in the life of the Christian in a process, which St. Paul describes in verses 8 through 10, as he details our response to God's prevenient grace.

God's work of art: Ephesians 2:8-10

⁸Because it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God; ⁹not by anything that you have done, so that nobody can claim the credit. ¹⁰We are God's work of art, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has already designated to make up our way of life.

Returning to Dr. Ferguson's teaching of Justification by faith alone above, he accuses those who teach that considerations of character as having any bearing on whether one grows in grace or continues in justification, are "smuggled in". He states, "Paul's teaching is that nothing we do ever contributes to our justification."¹⁹ This statement goes beyond St. Paul's actual teaching, that there is nothing anyone can do to earn God's initial movement of grace, that initial gift of His justification. However, that is a very different thing than suggesting that nothing that we do ever contributes to our justification—that is, our remaining in a state of Grace and persevering therein until our final glorification. To suggest that either St. Paul or Jesus Himself suggested that our justification before God is never dependent upon our response is to read our own presuppositions back into the text. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Ephesians 2:8-10. And yet this passage is cited frequently as a prooftext for Sola Fide.

As noted, God saves us by His grace, through faith. St. Paul comments, "not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God" (v. 8). Some question revolves around to what this last clause of verse 8 refers: Is God's grace not due to anything of our own? This seems to be utterly redundant, since the word, "grace", as noted above, among other things means specifically "a free gift". So then, is it our faith response to God's grace, or our salvation in general, that is "not by anything of [our] own"? It seems that our salvation and our faith, are the gift of God, that is, His grace. That faith is itself a gift of God, St. Thomas explains, commenting on this very verse:

Since he had said we are saved by faith, any one can hold the opinion that faith itself originates within ourselves and that to believe is determined by our own wishes. Therefore to abolish this he states "and that not of yourselves". Free will is inadequate for the act of faith since the contents of faith are above human reason. "Matters too great for human understanding have been shown to you" (Sir 3:25). "No one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:11). That a man should believe, therefore, cannot occur from himself unless God gives it, according to that text of Wisdom 9 (17): "Who could ever have known your will, had you not given Wisdom and sent your Holy Spirit from above." For this reason he adds for it is the gift of God, namely, faith itself. "For you have been granted, for the sake of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil 1:29). "To another, faith is given in the same Spirit" (1 Cor 12:9).²⁰

Thus, even our faith response to God's grace is itself an effect of God's grace. It is not from ourselves, nor is it given as a recompense or a recognition of any good thing we had done before God's gift of grace (v.9). There is absolutely no way that a person can earn God's grace or save himself apart from God's grace. Yet this very grace of God that brings about our salvation, as said, heals and resurrects our souls. The person saved by grace is no longer dead to sin. God's very life is at work in him or her in order to truly and freely respond to God's gracious gift. And so St. Paul tells us that we are to walk in the good works that God has prepared for us (v. 10). This thought is echoed in his letter to the Philippians (2:12-13),

So, my dear friends, you have always been obedient; your obedience must not be limited to times when I am present. Now that I am absent it must be more in evidence, so work out your salvation in fear and trembling. It is God who, for his own generous purpose, gives you the intention and the powers to act.

Not only, then, is our faith a gift of God's grace, but so too are our good works! Accusations that Catholicism teaches a works-righteousness are unfounded in this light, for we recognise that those very works themselves are the gracious gift of God!

Verse 10 encapsulates the beauty of this doctrine of salvation by God's grace, both in its description of God's work and our response. The phrase employed by the New Jerusalem Bible brings out this beautiful work of God by translating St. Paul's use of the word ποίημα (from whence comes our English word, "poem") as "work of art". God, the master craftsman, the divine artist, has, through the exceeding riches of His grace, recreated us as His masterpieces!

This notion flies in the face of those who hold to a merely imputational, forensic view of justification. God is not the Divine Lawyer reconciling us to Himself through a loophole or a legal fiction, by which He, with a wink, declares an unrighteous person to be righteous by giving them the righteousness of Christ like the fairy-godmother gave Cinderella a fancy dress for the ball! Justification is not about dressing the peasant up in the Noble's clothes, but about recreating the peasant into a noble!

With our souls healed, we now are free to desire the good and to work toward it. This is what God has created us in Christ Jesus for: "the good works which God has already designated to make up our way of life." Having received His grace, God invites us now to cooperate with it as His co-labourers (1 Corinthians 3:9). As St. Thomas again says, "God does not justify us without ourselves, because whilst we are being justified we consent to God's justification by a movement of our free-will. Nevertheless this movement is not the cause of grace, but the effect; hence the whole operation pertains to grace."²¹ In His loving care, God has preordained these good works for us to do, leaving nothing to chance. All that is left is our free choice to cooperate with His plan.

Therefore St. Paul writes that these good works are to "make up our way of life." The Greek phrase rendered thus by the New Jerusalem Bible is ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν, and literally means "that we should walk in them." It is in the aorist, active, subjunctive tense, and thus lays out a conditional instruction—that is, our walking in the good works that God has preordained for us is not an automatic eventuality. We must choose to cooperate, but we are free to choose not to.²² If we walk in God's grace, that is, persevere in it, we will come to our final glory. Yet, as the latter half of St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians makes clear, persisting in that obstinate rebellion (2:2) will once more alienate us from God, and destroy the life of grace in our souls.²³ As St. John Chrysostom said, commenting on verse 10:

We need a virtue which shall last throughout, and be extended on to our dying day. If we had to travel a road leading to a royal city, and then when we had passed over the greater part of it, were to flag and sit down near the [sic] very close, it were of no use to us. This is the hope of our calling; for "for good works" he says. Otherwise it would profit us nothing.²⁴

__________
Notes

11. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., para. 405.

12. Cf. the definition at the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry website (http://carm.org/dictionary-total-depravity, accessed December 5, 2012):

Total Depravity is the doctrine that fallen man is completely touched by sin and that he is completely a sinner. He is not as bad as he could be, but in all areas of his being, body, soul, spirit, mind, emotions, etc., he is touched by sin. In that sense he is totally depraved. Because man is depraved, nothing good can come out of him (Rom. 3:10-12) and God must account the righteousness of Christ to him. This righteousness is obtainable only through faith in Christ and what He did on the cross.

Total depravity is generally believed by the Calvinist groups and rejected by the Arminian groups.

13. Cf. Council of Trent, "Canons on Justification", esp. Canon VII (available with comments at http://barqueofpeter.blogspot.ca/2006/11/council-of-trent-canons-on.html).

14. Thayer, Joseph Henry, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. (Public Domain, 1868). (Available online at http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G543&t=KJV)

15. Thayer, Lexicon. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5485&t=KJV)

16. Ankerberg, Justification.

17. Thayer, Lexicon.

18. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. P. 2, Q. 111 Art. 3. (online at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2111.htm).

19. See Part 2.

20. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. (Albany, N.Y.: Magi Books, 1966). Ch 2, Lecture 3. (Available online at http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/Eph2.htm#3.

21. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. P. 2, Q. 111 Art. 2, R. 2.

22. As indicated at http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=2&v=10&t=KJV#conc/10.

23. Cf. the moral instructions beginning at Eph. 4:17 and continuing to the end of the Epistle—esp. 4:18.

24. St. John Chrysostom, "Homily 4 on Ephesians", Church Fathers. (Available online at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230104.htm).

(Category: Soteriology: Justification)

The Art of Grace: A Biblical Study of Ephesians 2:1-10 - Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:00:00 +0000

The General Outline of Ephesians

As with most of St. Paul's other epistles, Ephesians consists of two major parts. In this particular case, these parts divide the letter neatly in half. Chapters 1-3 deal with the content of the faith—the Gospel message of Christ's redeeming the world and through God's grace resurrecting our souls and enabling us to have a covenant, family relationship with God and with all people in Christ. Chapters 4-6 provide teaching on the Christian response to that adoption into God's covenant family: the structure of that covenant, and its obligations to a moral life. In fact, it can be summed up in the terms used to refer to the spheres of authority of the Church: Faith (ch 1-3) and Morals (ch 4-6).

St. Paul begins with a prayer or hymn to God's goodness and his grace given to us in Christ Jesus. He then elaborates on the sinful state of humanity devoid of this grace, which is God's very life within the soul, vivifying it. This treatment carries us into the first few verses of chapter 2, which itself is divided into two even parts. Verses 1 through 10 summarise how God's grace resurrects the one who is dead in sin, and how that one is saved and raised up with Jesus, through the life-giving power of grace, through the response of faith, making that one a child of God. The second half of chapter 2 shows how that grace makes a person a sharer in God's covenant, and unites him or her with all those who are in Christ, whether they are Jew or Gentile, for all are one in Christ Jesus. Chapter 3 sees St. Paul elaborating on the mystery of the New Covenant with an assertion and an appeal to his own apostolic status and ministry. This chapter ends with a prayer to God that the Christian community to whom St. Paul is writing would continue to grow in their faith and love of God.

Chapter 4 begins with an appeal to live a life worthy of the great grace given to us in Christ Jesus, and continues with an appeal to the unity of the Church, under the authority of the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, showing that it is their authority and teaching that will protect the Christian from being led astray by false teachings, and enable them to grow and mature in their faith. He continues by contrasting the sinfulness of the fallen world with the expectation of righteousness and virtue for the Christian made alive by the Holy Spirit. Chapter 5 continues this theme in practical terms, giving warning against specific sins. St. Paul then exhorts mutual submission to each other and to the Church, and discusses the right attitude of the Christian to civil authority, and to spouses—providing the theological understanding of the Sacrament of Matrimony. Chapter 6 continues these practical instructions in righteousness, obliging children to be honouring of and obedient to their parents, and parents to be respectful to their children. Lastly, in the sphere of relationships, St. Paul treats of masters and slaves. He then moves on to an exhortation to perseverance, using the Roman soldier's armour as an analogy for the Christian life and the tools needed to live it faithfully. He then concludes with closing greetings and a doxology.

We see, from this overview, the balance in the Christian life—that is, through God's grace, we participate in the life of the Covenant, centred in the Church, lived in justice and in ordered, loving relationships. When one loses sight of the ecclesiastical nature of the Christian covenant, and of the obligation to persevere in a faith lived out in obedient virtue, one loses the entire thrust of the message of the epistle—indeed, of the very Gospel.

The Controversy: Ephesians 2:8-9 and the Doctrine of Sola Fide

However, at the time of the Reformation, it was precisely this message of Ephesians that was lost, both the ecclesiastical nature of the New Covenant, and the understanding of how faith cooperated with God's grace through good works. The Reformation hung on the undermining of these two notions by establishing two counter-pillars: Sola Scriptura militating against the first, and Sola Fide against the second. Claiming to base itself upon Scripture, à la Sola Scriptura, Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers used biblical texts such as Ephesians 2:8-9, wrenched from their contexts, to proclaim a Gospel wherein our salvation was dependent upon only our faith response to God's grace—and that this faith prompted God to declare us righteous by imputing to us Christ's righteousness. This imputation did not make us actually righteous, but only acted as a legal decree. Theologian Sinclair Ferguson describes it this way:

The glory of the gospel is that God has declared Christians to be rightly related to him in spite of their sin. But our greatest temptation and mistake is to try to smuggle character into his work of grace. How easily we fall into the trap of assuming that we only remain justified so long as there are grounds in our character for that justification. But Paul's teaching is that nothing we do ever contributes to our justification. So powerful was his emphasis on this that men accused him of teaching that it did not matter how they lived if God justified them. If God justifies us as we are, what is the point of holiness? There is still a sense in which this is a test of whether we offer the world the grace of God in the Gospel. Does it make me say: "You are offering grace that is so free it doesn't make any difference how you live"? This was precisely the objection the Pharisees had to Jesus' teaching!⁹

Dr. Ferguson asks some rhetorical questions to which he provides no answers. He dismisses them merely by saying that the Pharisees asked the same questions and made the same accusations to Jesus. However, the Catholic finds these questions rather to the point, and demands an answer. Moreover, the Catholic finds very little evidence in the Gospel that the Pharisees made this particular accusation to Jesus, and very little in the Gospel to suggest that Jesus taught that character and obedience to Him had so very little to do with justification. The Catholic Church, in contrast to this teaching, maintains that Justification is God's work of detaching one from sin, which follows upon His merciful offer of forgiveness. It involves the forgiveness of sin, and sanctification—that is, actually making us righteous through the merits of Christ. Unlike the Reformed understanding, Justification for the Catholic is more than simply a legal declaration, and further, it actually establishes in the person the ability to cooperate with God's grace, and so actually do good works and increase in grace and holiness.¹⁰ The corollary, of course, is that if one does not cooperate with God's grace, one can indeed lose this justification.

__________
Notes

9. Quoted in Ankerberg, John and John Weldon, The Doctrine of Justification. (http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/Salvation/Salvation%20PDF/salvation-justification.pdf, accessed Dec. 6, 2012).

10. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., paras. 1989-1995.

(Category: Soteriology: Justification)

The Art of Grace: A Biblical Study of Ephesians 2:1-10 - Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:00:00 +0000

And you were dead, through the crimes and the sins which used to make up your way of life when you were living by the principles of this world, obeying the ruler who dominates the air, the spirit who is at work in those who rebel. We too were all among them once, living only by our natural inclinations, obeying the demands of human self-indulgence and our own whim; our nature made us no less liable to God's retribution than the rest of the world. But God, being rich in faithful love, through the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our sins, brought us to life with Christ—it is through grace that you have been saved—and raised us up with him and gave us a place with him in heaven, in Christ Jesus. This was to show for all ages to come, through his goodness towards us in Christ Jesus, how extraordinarily rich he is in grace. Because it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God; not by anything that you have done, so that nobody can claim the credit. We are God's work of art, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has already designated to make up our way of life. (Ephesians 2:1-10)¹

Outline

-Introduction

-St. Paul's 'Catholic' Epistle: The Authorship and Background

-The General Outline of Ephesians

-The Controversy: Ephesians 2:8-9 and the Doctrine of Sola Fide

-Examining Ephesians 2:1-10

-Dead in sin: Ephesians 2:1-3

-Brought to life in Christ: Ephesians 2:4-7

-God's work of art: Ephesians 2:8-10
-Application: Our Way of Life

-Conclusion

Introduction

Preachers and theologians, even from ancient times, have loved the writings of St. Paul. Seeking to emulate both his faith and devotion to Christ, and his often direct and forceful proclamation of the Gospel, pulpits throughout the centuries have quoted and commented on his words, exhorting congregations to greater faith and to perseverance in the same. Yet St. Paul is not always particularly clear in his meaning. Using the Greek language in an often unique way, his writings have caused many difficulties in interpretation and translation.² In fact, St. Peter himself remarks on this difficulty in his second encyclical:

Think of our Lord's patience as your opportunity to be saved; our brother Paul, who is so dear to us, told you this when he wrote to you with the wisdom that he was given. He makes this point too in his letters as a whole wherever he touches on these things. In all his letters there are of course some passages which are hard to understand, and these are the ones that uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way as they distort the rest of scripture—to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16).

While, on the one hand, St. Paul's letters seem already to be recognised as having Scriptural authority, St. Peter gives the Church the same caution regarding them as he does the rest of Scripture: be careful to read them rightly, and understand them in accordance with the fullness of the faith of the Church.

St. Paul's letter "to the Ephesians" is but one example of his writings which has led to controversial theological interpretation. Through the singling out of passages, devoid of their proper context, and interpreted in such a way as to justify a particular theological conclusion, St. Paul's words have been used to both cause and perpetuate one of the major schisms in the Church that Christ founded. The tragic irony of it is that this particular interpretational twist occurs in a letter that is perhaps St. Paul's clearest appeal to the authority and the unity of the Universal Church (cf. Eph 4:1-16).³

St. Paul's 'Catholic' Epistle: The Authorship and Background

When the New Testament was compiled, it was done so primarily in terms of genre. The Gospels were grouped together, followed by the history of the Early Church contained in the Acts of the Apostles. Next comes the corpus of St. Paul's letters—first, those written to specific churches, then those termed "pastoral" as they were written to leaders of particular churches. Hebrews follows this collection, as it was often attributed to St. Paul, but with uncertainty. Following Hebrews come the "Catholic Epistles", so called because they are not addressed to any particular congregation, and thus are for the whole (i.e., Catholic) Church. These were written by (or at least, in some cases, attributed to) the Apostles whose names they bear. Last, as it pertains to the end, comes Revelation.⁴

The letter to the Ephesians makes for an interesting exception to this organisational structure. While traditionally, the first verse of the Epistle addresses it to the Ephesians, Origen and St. Basil, among others, attest that the earliest manuscripts do not have this designation⁵ (a fact preserved in the New Jerusalem Bible)⁶. This absence, as well as the absence of any hint of intimacy with the congregation at Ephesus, a church St. Paul himself founded and spent three years with, have led scholars to question whether Ephesus was actually the intended recipient, or, on the other hand, whether St. Paul was its actual author. Theories range from suggesting that a companion, disciple, or successor of St. Paul actually wrote the letter in his name, to suggesting that perhaps the epistle is actually a compilation of St. Paul's teaching, and not a self-contained epistle. Others suggest that it was perhaps the epistle to the Laodiceans mentioned in his letter to the Colossians (4:16).⁷ A final possibility, and the one that this author finds most compelling, is that put forward by P. Ladeuze, STD:

How, then, admitting that St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians, shall we explain the origin of this document? The Apostle, who was a captive at Rome, was informed by Epaphras of the dogmatic and moral errors that had come to light in Colossae and the neighboring cities, in churches of which he was not the founder. He also learned that he had been censured for not bringing to the perfection of Christianity those whom he had once converted, and for not taking sufficient interest in churches that had sprung up side by side with his own, although without his personal intervention (Col 1:28-2:5). At the same time that Paul received the news concerning Colossae and its surroundings, he also heard (Eph 1:15) that in a distant part of Asia Minor Christian communities had been brought to the Faith, perhaps by evangelists (Eph 4:11). Impressed by the accusations made against him, Paul took advantage of the departure of Tychicus for Colossae, to enter into communication with those Christians who had heard of him (Eph 3:2) and to address them a letter in which he had to limit himself to general considerations on Christianity, but he wished to prove his Apostolic solicitude for them by making them realize not only the dignity of their Christian vocation, but the oneness of the Church of God and the intimate union by which all the faithful, no matter what their history, are constituted a single body of which Christ is the head.⁸

As such, unlike with the Epistles, say, to the Corinthians or the Galatians, St. Paul is not addressing a particular crisis or conflict in this epistle—much less a conflict going on at Ephesus. Rather, much like his Epistle to the Romans, he was writing an introductory letter, laying out the Gospel message, in part to show his own place in the Apostolic hierarchy and tradition, as well as to test, and if need be, adjust the orthodoxy of the community which he was addressing for the first time. This accounts, as we shall see, for the impersonal tone and the orderly presentation of the Gospel, neither reacting to Judaisers nor to those of an antinomian persuasion. Writing later on in life, imprisoned in Rome, we understand as well the mature and catholic (i.e. universal) ecclesiology espoused by St. Paul in this letter, which, in the absence of any other title, we shall nevertheless refer to as "Ephesians".

__________
Notes

1. All Scripture quotations are taken from The New Jerusalem Bible, Henry Wansbrough, gen. ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1999).

2. Pope, Hugh, OP, STM, "St. Paul's Epistles", Bible Study: New Testament. (http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/articles/St._Paul%27s_Epistles, last updated December 3, 2012), part B.

3. Ladeuze, P., STD, "Epistle to the Ephesians, Bible Study: New Testament Books. (http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/articles/Epistle_to_the_Ephesians, last updated December 3, 2012), II, 2.

4. Just, Felix, SJ, PhD, Eight Tips About Canonical Arrangement. (http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT_Canon.htm#Arrangement, last updated July 27, 2009).

5. Footnote on Ephesians 1:1 in the New American Bible. (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1992).

6. "Paul, by the will of God an apostle of Christ Jesus, to God's holy people,^a faithful in Christ Jesus." The note, 'a', reads, "Some authorities add 'who are at Ephesus' or 'who are...', leaving a gap for a place-name to be filled in."

7. "Introduction" to Ephesians in the New American Bible.

8. Ladeuze, "Epistle to the Ephesians", V. Earlier, in section IV, Ladeuze argues,

Now, in the course of his three journeys, Paul had traversed all parts of Asia Minor except the northern provinces along the Black Sea, territory which he did not reach prior to his captivity. Nevertheless, the First Epistle of St. Peter shows us that the Faith had already penetrated these regions; hence, with the historical data at our disposal, it is in this vicinity that it seems most reasonable to seek those to whom the Epistle was addressed. These Christians must have been named in the authentic text of the inscription of this Epistle, as they are in all of St. Paul's letters. Now, whenever the substantive participle appears in one of these inscriptions, it serves the sole purpose of introducing the mention of locality. We are therefore authorized to believe that, in the address of the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph 1:1: τοῑς ἁγίοις οῡσιν καὶ πιστοῑς ἐν Χριστῷ ̓Ιησοῡ (tois hagiois ousin kai pistois en Christo Iesou)), this participle, so difficult to understand in the received text, originally preceded the designation of the place inhabited by the readers. One might assume that the line containing this designation was omitted owing to some distraction on the part of the first copyist; however, it would then be necessary to admit that the mention of locality, now in question, occurred in the midst of qualifying adjectives applied by the Apostle to his readers ἁγίοις τοῑς ... πιστοῑς (hagiois tois ousin ... pistois), and this is something that is never verified in the letters of St. Paul. Hence we may suppose that, in this address, the indication of place was corrupted rather than omitted, and this paves the way for conjectural restorations. We ourselves have proposed the following: τοῑς ἁγίοις τοῑς κατ̓ ῏Ιριν τοῑς ἐν Χριστῷ ̓Ιησοῡ (tois hagiois tois ousin kat' Irin tois en Christo Iesou). (Ladeuze in Revue biblique, 1902, pp. 573 sq.) Grammatically, this phrase corresponds perfectly with the Apostle's style (cf. Gal 1:22; 1 Cor 1:2; Phil 1:1) and palaeographically, if transcribed in ancient capitals, it readily accounts for the corruption that has certainly been produced in the text. The Epistle to the Ephesians was, therefore, written to distant churches, located perhaps in various provinces [Pontus, Galatia, Polemonium (the kingdom of Polemon)] and, for this reason, requiring to be designated by a general term, but all situated along the River Iris.

(Category: Soteriology: Justification)

It's Been a While!

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:48:00 +0000

Wow, sorry for the neglect of Barque! After I finished the Eucharist series, I decided I needed to catch up over at Doubting Thomist. Then I started back at my old Bible College, in order to finish off my Bachelor of Religious Education. I'm hoping, once that's finished (in April), I can go on to get a teaching degree, and become a Catholic high school religion teacher. Anyway, between part-time courses and a full-time job, I've had little time to dive into any new topics here.

I've now finished this semester, and plan to publish on this blog two papers that I wrote for my hermeneutics class over the Advent/Christmas break. They'll be published in parts, because otherwise their length would be overwhelming!

The first is an exegetical look at Ephesians 2:1-10 and a refutation of the Protestant notion of Sola Fide, and the second is a treatise on the fundamental principles of biblical interpretation from a Catholic perspective. Before I publish it here, I plan to expand certain parts of it in order to bolster its apologetic aspects, especially as pertains to the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura.

Next semester, I've got a course in Science and Christianity, and a course called "Worldview Studies", which will, I hear, be pretty philosophical. So I'm excited! And if the opportunity presents itself (as I'm sure it will), I will write Catholic-centric papers for those courses, and insofar as they have an apologetical bent, I will publish them here, as well!

Wishing you all a Blessed Advent, as we await the coming of Our Lord,
God bless,
Gregory

Eucharistic Miracles

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 02:02:00 +0000

July starts tomorrow, the month dedicated by the Church to devotion to the Precious Blood of Jesus. As such, I thought I'd finally follow up on my Eucharist posts with an article about Eucharistic Miracles.

Back when I wrote my series about the Eucharist, I had planned to follow it up with a few articles about those phenomena in the history of the Church when Jesus had gone even beyond the great miracle of Transubstantiation, in order to provide tangible proof of His Real Presence in the Eucharist. I own a book (which I lent to someone and have yet to get back), which catalogues and summarises over 100 Church-approved Eucharistic Miracles, and was hoping to use it as a springboard for the series. However, I've discovered that the contents of the entire book are available online, as well as other goodies, at The Real Presence Association's website. I very much encourage you to check out this website, and the various miracles recorded there.

In particular, please read Monsignor Raffaello Martinelli's essay explaining what a Eucharistic Miracle is (and, importantly, what it's not!). As well, if all 100+ miracles are a bit daunting to you, dear reader, I would especially encourage you to check out the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano (and part 2), one of the earliest, most dramatic, most scientifically-researched Eucharistic miracles of all--and one that still exists after nearly 1300 years!

People often accuse Christians of accepting their beliefs based on blind faith. Eucharistic Miracles show that, to the contrary, God provides evidence for us from time to time! An atheist friend with whom I used to work once asked, "If God wants us all to believe in Him, why doesn't He give us some proof?" When I showed him the book of Eucharistic Miracles, and in particular, the Miracle of Lanciano, he replied, "I dunno. Seems kinda like a dog-and-pony show." It's not Christians who believe on blind faith; it's sceptics who disbelieve on blind faith!

To whet your appetite to check out the above website, I've included a two-part presentation on YouTube:

The first Eucharistic Miracle presented in the video is that of Lanciano, linked above. The second one is that of Bolsena (and part 2). The third is the one which I linked to back at the beginning of the Eucharist series, and can be found here.

God bless,
Gregory

(Category: Catholic Distinctives: Sacraments--The Eucharist)

Litany of Humility

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 03:07:00 +0000

O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the desire of being loved...
From the desire of being extolled...
From the desire of being honored...
From the desire of being praised...
From the desire of being preferred to others...
From the desire of being consulted...
From the desire of being approved...
From the fear of being humiliated...
From the fear of being despised...
From the fear of suffering rebukes...
From the fear of being calumniated...
From the fear of being forgotten...
From the fear of being ridiculed...
From the fear of being wronged...
From the fear of being suspected...

That others may be loved more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be esteemed more than I...
That, in the opinion of the world,
others may increase and I may decrease...
That others may be chosen and I set aside...
That others may be praised and I unnoticed...
That others may be preferred to me in everything...
That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should...

(Category: Catholic Devotions: Common Catholic Prayers.)

Prayer to St. Dominic

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:02:00 +0000

Great Saint Dominic,
you laboured for the
salvation of others by
preaching the Word of God
in dangerous times
even among the heretics.
Inspire me to be like you.
Let me be strong in my faith.
Help me to provide for the needs
of the children of this world.
Lead me to spend my days
as a reflection of Christ's love
throughout my life.
Give me the right words
to always speak the truth
with a zeal for saving souls.
Amen.

(Category: Catholic Devotions: Common Catholic Prayers.)

Evangelisation

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:47:00 +0000

Jesus came up and spoke to them. He said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of time' (Matthew 28:18-20).

I've had a couple of conversations lately on the subject of Evangelisation--the sharing and spreading of the Gospel--that have left me a little bewildered. One was with former co-author of this blog (and former Christian), Kane Augustus (Christopher) Freeman, and another was with a Dominican Friar at the GodzDogz website. Now, one would suppose, I would hope, that a former Evangelical Christian and a member of the Order of Friars Preachers, would have a better understanding of what Evangelisation is. However, from the one, it was asked me,

[T]here is an evangelical aspect to Christianity that requires the persuasion of others to believe. Roughly translated, that "persuasion" is equivalent to bringing a person past their inability to believe in something they find unbelievable, isn't it?

From the other, it was argued, in the context of the Dismissal Rite at Mass,

In the past, when the congregation was told to go out to the world, it might have been understood as being sent to those who were lost. The Christian community, the followers of the true way, would be sent out to look for the lost sheep and the sheep that had never belonged to the flock and bring them to the right shepherd. Even if this is a wrong way of understanding our mission in the world, it is a much better way of understanding "life after Mass" than going and holding jealously on the graces gained from our Eucharistic celebrations.

When one is sent out after Mass, it is in order to go and share the graces one has gained from that Eucharistic Celebration. In other words, it is to bring that Mass to others, not convincing them that our way is much better than theirs, but to make sure that if there is anything we learnt from our gatherings it may also serve them.

Moreover, my Friar friend made the incredible statement that evangelisation must inexoribly lead to war. Nevertheless, Brother Gustave, in the same article, goes on to say,

During our Eucharistic celebrations, we experience a heavenly moment where we enter full communion with God. Sometimes we are tempted to remain there and pitch tents for the Lord like in Mark 9:2-10. The dismissal reminds us that this heavenly experience should be brought to others. People who love, they usually enjoy sharing whatever they believe will bring happiness and joy to others. Christians are supposed to be loving people and be enthusiastic in sharing what they gain from their Eucharistic celebrations...

To my mind, Brother Gustave touched upon the true meaning of Evangelisation without grasping, it seems, the fullness of what he said. This paragraph, rightly understood, provides the correct balance between the extremes of his and Kane's understanding of Evangelisation as arrogantly supposing that everyone must convert to Christianity, even beyond their own ability to reasonably accept the Christian claims, or forcing them to convert against their will (in sum, "shoving your religion down their throats"), and, on the other hand, merely entering into a dialogue of indifferentism, in which neither party assumes, or is permitted to assume, that what he has to offer is of any greater inherent value than what the other person already possesses.

In other words, we have on the one hand the error of Loveless Truth, and on the other, Truthless Love. In the middle, we have St. Paul's words in Ephesians, "If we live by the truth in love, we shall grow completely into Christ" (4:15). What does it mean to live the truth in love? St. Paul develops the theme in his letter to the Philippians:

So, my dear friends, you have always been obedient; your obedience must not be limited to times when I am present. Now that I am absent it must be more in evidence, so work out your salvation in fear and trembling. It is God who, for his own generous purpose, gives you the intention and the powers to act. Let your behaviour be free of murmuring and complaining so that you remain faultless and pure, unspoilt children of God surrounded by a deceitful and underhand brood, shining out among them like stars in the world, proffering to it the Word of life (2:12-16a).

Or as St. Peter instructs us,

Simply proclaim the Lord Christ holy in your hearts, and always have your answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you have. But give it with courtesy and respect and with a clear conscience, so that those who slander your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their accusations (1 Peter 3:15-16).

So we have to recognise that evangelisation is not an option for Christians. Jesus commanded it, and St. Paul teaches that it is a part of working out our salvation. What does making disciples of all nations look like, then? I can't fault Kane too much for thinking that it looks like forcing your religion on another person. As an evangelical, that was often what our "loving" proclamation seemed like to others. It is, perhaps, no accident that many of my atheist and other non-Christian friends have found me much more tolerable to be around since my conversion to Catholicism--not because I am less committed to my faith, or to sharing it, but because truly understanding the Gospel and how to share it makes a world of difference--not that I am at all perfect or always avoid slipping into one or the other of the above extremes.

The first important step in Evangelisation is simply knowing our faith--and not simply as an academic formula. We must begin with an intimate friendship with Jesus. We can hardly be His witnesses without having a lived experience of Him. Frequent reception of the Sacraments and much time in prayer are absolutely necessary. Knowing Jesus personally must be accompanied with a working knowledge of at least the basics of our faith. The nitty-gritty details of theology aren't the issue here--nor is being able to explain them with chapter-and-verse from the Bible or Catechism citations. But there are certain things you need to know, to take to heart personally, that our faith teaches. These things will come across in how you live even more than in what you say. Briefly, these are the important things to know, believe, and live out:

A) All people are made in God's image, and thus possess an inherent dignity as human persons, worthy of love. We need to approach all people as if we were approaching Our Lord Himself.

B) We need to recognise that we are all sinners, in need of a Saviour. That's the point. But in this recognition, we can never hold ourselves up as superior to the other sinners to whom we're bringing the Gospel, to make them as good as us. In fact, relating back to A, it's just the opposite. The greatest, most effective evangelists, like St. Dominic, were extremely hard on themselves and their own sinfulness, but extremely gentle and understanding toward others. This is the attitude we must have.

C) While we believe that the Church has the fullness of Truth, this does not mean that everyone else is completely devoid of truth. Rather, to varying degrees, they already have parts of the truth that they live out themselves. We need to approach them with the notion of common ground, and relate the Truth of the Gospel to the truth they already possess, since truth doesn't contradict itself. We build on and share in what we have in common, in order to show them the greater Truth of Jesus Christ.

The second step is, of course, to live out the truth that we have--that intimate relationship with Jesus that displays itself as love, compassion, and respect for others. It is here that the most crucial part of Evangelism takes place--in loving, humble service, and in living an authentic life of love wherever we are. As St. Francis was wont to say, "Preach the Gospel to all people; if necessary, use words."

The final step, of course, is to actually share the Catholic faith with the people whom you have loved. After bringing Jesus to them through our actions, we engage them in dialogue and discussion, "hav[ing] your answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you have (1 Peter 3:15)." It's not about being pushy with our discussion of Jesus, but being sensitive to the receptiveness of the other person. When we are in love, we naturally bring up the one we love in conversation with others. It should be no different with Jesus. We don't bring Him into the conversation in a heavy-handed way with the intention of forcing Him down another's throat and making them a convert, but as an expression of our love for Him, we share that love of Him with the other, to attract them to the love, truth, beauty, and goodness that we have found.

Going back to Brother Gustave's words above:

During our Eucharistic celebrations, we experience a heavenly moment where we enter full communion with God....[T]his heavenly experience should be brought to others. People who love, they usually enjoy sharing whatever they believe will bring happiness and joy to others. Christians are supposed to be loving people and be enthusiastic in sharing what they gain from their Eucharistic celebrations...

When we know and love Jesus, recognising that He is the greatest thing in our lives, and indeed, in the world, and that He waits for us in the Eucharist, to unite Himself intimately with us--when we really believe that with all our hearts--that love can't help but overflow in us so that we will ardently desire to share that with everyone we meet! That's Evangelisation.

(Category: The Church--A Light to the Nations.)

Invocations to the Precious Blood of Jesus

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:46:00 +0000

Precious Blood of Jesus, shed in the circumcision, make me chaste of mind, heart, and body.

Precious Blood, oozing in the agony of Jesus, from every pore, grant me to love above all things the holy and adorable will of God.

Precious Blood, flowing abundantly in the scourging at the pillar, inspire me with a keen sorrow for my sins and a love of suffering.

Precious Blood, falling in profusion from the crown of thorns, grant me a love of humiliation.

Precious Blood, furrowing the way to Calvary, fill me with courage to walk unfalteringly in the bloody footsteps of Jesus.

Precious Blood, shed so profusely in the Crucifixion of my Jesus, make me die entirely to self-love.

Precious Blood, shed to the very last drop by the opening of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, give me that generous love that sacrifices all for God.

Precious Blood, sacred source from which all graces flow, apply Your infinite merits to my soul.

Precious Blood, whose virtue animates and enlivens our actions, apply Your infinite merits to all our works.

Life-giving fountain, in which the soul fully quenches its thirst, saturate me with pure love.

O Divine Blood of my Jesus, I adore You from the depths of my heart.

I fervently invoke You, for You are my salvation and by You I hope to obtain the joys of paradise.

Eternal Father, be merciful, for the sake of the Blood of Your only Son; we plead You, show us Your mercy.

Most Precious Blood of Jesus, cry for mercy for us to the Heavenly Father, and deliver us.

Eternal Father, I offer You the Precious Blood of Jesus, in reparation for my sins and the needs of the universal Church.
Amen.

(Category: Catholic Devotions: Common Catholic Prayers.)

Looking at Jesus

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:40:00 +0000

'So you had not the strength to stay awake with me for one hour? Stay awake, and pray not to be put to the test. The spirit is willing enough, but human nature is weak' (Matthew 26:41-42).

Now that we've significantly examined the theological dimensions and meanings of the Eucharist, and understand that it truly is Jesus Himself whom we receive in Communion as our New Covenant sacrifice, I want to wax personal as I draw our attention and devotion to an aspect of this Blessed Sacrament that goes beyond the celebration of the Mass, and into the private, individual aspect of the spiritual life. For when the Church teaches that Jesus Christ is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the sacred species, she maintains that this presence is ongoing for as long as the Eucharistic Elements remain intact. In other words, for as long as the Consecrated Host looks and acts like bread, it is actually Jesus. But once that Host has broken down and decomposed, then it ceases to be Jesus. And the same goes for the consecrated Wine. As long as it has the characteristics of Wine, it remains Jesus.

The Eucharist Outside of Mass

As such, the Eucharist which is not consumed during Mass is treated with the same respect and worship with which we are to treat Jesus Himself. This is the reason that the left-over Eucharist is placed in the church's Tabernacle, as a place of honour in the church, usually made of gold, so that He may be easily found and worshipped upon entry. This is the reason why Catholics genuflect (that is, kneel down) upon entering the church and before sitting in their pews. And this is why those Catholics who are unable to attend Mass may be brought the Eucharist afterward--because even though the Mass has ended, Jesus remains, to be received by any and all the faithful who desire Him.

Throughout the centuries, particularly in the Western Church, this truth of Jesus' enduring presence in the Eucharist has led to further devotions. I've already talked about the Corpus Christi Procession, in which the Eucharist is paraded through the streets of the parish while parishioners follow in prayer and song. But while that happens only once a year, Jesus is available every day. And over the centuries this led to the practice of coming and spending a "holy hour" with Him in what is known as Eucharistic Adoration.

Worshipping the Eucharistic Lord

Unlike the liturgical celebration of the Mass, Eucharistic Adoration is an opportunity for a person to individually spend time with Jesus. He may be reposed in the Tabernacle, but many churches have set up Chapels specifically for the purpose of Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and during specific hours (or, at some parishes, perpetually), the Eucharistic Host is placed into a Monstrance, which is a golden object having a clear glass or plastic case into which the Host is placed for easy viewing. Around this clear case are golden decorative sculptures, often taking the form of a Cross, or rays of a sun, or sometimes resembling the Gothic frontispiece of an altar. The effect is one of housing Jesus in a setting that elevates our minds to the dignity of this Sacrament--the fact that what we are looking at is not merely bread, but is actually God Himself.

Upon entering the chapel and beholding the monstrance, one genuflects to Jesus, and, finding a seat, begins simply being with Him. What you do with Jesus is completely up to you--it is a time of private, personal prayer. You might pray a Rosary, or read the Bible or other spiritual writings. You may simply sit in silence, or, provided you aren't disturbing any other adorers, you may sing. You may stand, sit, kneel, or completely prostrate yourself in the presence of the Lord. It truly is your time with Jesus. I personally often like to bring my sketchpad, and draw inspiration from my time with Jesus for new paintings.

Spending Time in the Presence of Jesus

Fundamentally, though, it's not about what you do in Adoration. It's about building that personal relationship with Jesus. How are we supposed to get to know Jesus if we never spend any time with Him? And if that time spent is always in a "group setting" at Mass, there is a danger that our knowledge and love for Him could remain merely superficial. This, of course, is not necessarily the case, since receiving Jesus in Communion is the most intimate experience we can have with Him. However, if we're not allowing ourselves the time to spend with Him outside of the Mass, and especially doing so in Adoration, we're depriving ourselves of an opportunity to be completely honest with Jesus about our needs, our failings, our sufferings, our trials, our joys, and in sum, who we are as a whole. And the converse is true, that in Adoration we take the time to sit in silence, and just listen to Him. In the silence of Adoration, we learn how to listen, and what to listen for. We gaze upon our Lord, knowing that He has humbled Himself to appear to us in Bread, reminding us that He Himself is our sustenance, that He knows our needs and wants to take care of us. As one man put it, "I look at Jesus, and He looks back at me."

The Benefits of Adoration

At this point, it may seem utterly superfluous to enumerate the effects of Adoration. It seems that one who is already sold on having an opportunity to spend time in the tangible presence of our Lord, and dialoguing with Him in a loving relationship, doesn't need to hear about the wonderful results of doing so; on the other hand, one who doesn't already feel compelled to start visiting Jesus in this manner will likely remain complacent no matter what reasons I could provide. Nevertheless, it is possible that the benefits might push a fence-sitter over the edge, and that hearing them clearly stated might serve to refresh and rekindle the cooling devotion of one who already participates in Adoration. In any case, I shall describe them here if for no other reason than that it is always good to tell of the wonderful works of our God.

1. A Deeper Relationship with Jesus
Obviously, the first and primary benefit of Adoration is the deepening of one's own relationship with the Eucharistic Jesus. In my former Christian tradition, much was made of having a "personal relationship with Jesus," but the thought that He might truly be present in a tangible, real sense in the Eucharist was not thought of, or even flat-out denied. It was once I understood this amazing truth, and began to practice Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, that my intimacy and closeness with Jesus really began to grow exponentially. If you feel far from Jesus, and your spiritual life feels dry, I encourage you to seek Him out in the Adoration Chapel. He is waiting for you there.

2. Spiritual Strength
The next great benefit is having more time, more energy, and greater vision to serve Jesus. Many object to Adoration as taking time away from the active life of ministering. Yet Jesus Himself led by example, taking quiet times during the day to commune with His heavenly Father. If Jesus needed these times of spiritual solitude, how can we suggest that we should neglect them? On the contrary, spending time with Jesus strengthens us to become more productive and fruitful labourers in His vineyard.

3. Growth in Personal and Corporate Holiness
Third, Adoration increases sanctity in one's life. Obviously, spending time with the All-Holy God cannot help but make us more holy ourselves. In His presence, our sinfulness is brought clearly to mind, and the compuction necessary to make a good Confession is produced. I have experienced this many times, to the degree that when I feel most attached to my sins, I am actually afraid to go to Jesus in the Sacrament. Just as it is a great sacrilege to receive Communion in a state of sin, so just being in the presence of Jesus in Adoration will compel us to get to Confession as soon as possible! This increase in holiness that results will overflow into other areas of our lives, strengthening our marriages, our families, our parish's life and vitality, and on and on. I read about one parish whose attendance doubled and collections tripled just from beginning Perpetual Adoration there! Our intimate, personal, one-on-one time with Jesus spills out into the life of the entire community!

4. Increase in Vocations
Of the many effects of Adoration, I will content myself to name just one more: Adoration has been shown to lead to an increase in vocations to the Priesthood and Religious life. The increase of the spiritual vitality of a parish resulting from Adoration prompts more men and women to live their faith more ardently, and to respond to God's call in their lives to surrender their lives utterly to Him. And the very act of Adoration stills the soul so that one is more responsive to hearing His voice calling. If anyone is unsure about God's plan for their life, take it to the Lord in Adoration, and He will reveal it to you there; whether that be to the clerical state, religious life, marriage, or whatever else He has planned. Place yourselves before Him, and like Samuel of old, say, "Speak, Lord, your servant is listening."

Jesus is waiting for you in the Blessed Sacrament. Go and meet Him!

(Category: Catholic Distinctives: Sacraments--The Eucharist;
Catholic Devotions: Eucharistic Devotions)

The Heavenly Banquet

noreply@blogger.com (Gregory) — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 04:00:00 +0000

Whenever you eat this bread, then, and drink this cup, you are proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:26)

In this, the last of our series of reflections on the theology of the Eucharist, as outlined in paragraph 1323 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we're going to examine an aspect of the Church's teaching on the Blessed Sacrament that is often overlooked in common explanations. Indeed, the very branch of theology known as "eschatology" (the study of the Last Things or the End Times) is often neglected in Catholic circles, too often leaving people's understanding of the end of the world to be formed by fringe personalities like Harold Camping or Hollywood's sensational, if wrong-headed ideas. As Pope Benedict recently stated to journalist Peter Seewald in his book-length interview, Light of the World,

Our preaching, our proclamation, really is one-sided, in that it is largely directed toward the creation of a better world, while hardly anyone talks any more about the other, truly better world. We need to examine our consciences on this point. Of course one has to meet one's listeners half-way, one has to speak to them in terms of their own horizon. But at the same time our task is to open up this horizon, to broaden it, and to turn our gaze toward the ultimate (p. 179).

The fact is, we do believe Jesus when He tells us that He is coming again. We believe Him when He tells us there is more to this world--a world which is passing away. We hope in the world to come, in heavenly glory, in the Beatific Vision, in which we will see God face to face. And to strengthen us in that hope, Jesus left us Himself in the Blessed Sacrament, as a pledge of that future glory!

In an ancient prayer the Church acclaims the mystery of the Eucharist: "O sacred banquet in which Christ is received as food, the memory of his Passion is renewed, the soul is filled with grace and a pledge of the life to come is given to us." If the Eucharist is the memorial of the Passover of the Lord Jesus, if by our communion at the altar we are filled "with every heavenly blessing and grace," then the Eucharist is also an anticipation of the heavenly glory (Catechism #1402).

Who Was and Is and Is to Come
As we discussed in previous articles, we believe that Jesus is truly present, here and now, in the Eucharistic elements. When at Mass, we see the consecrated Bread and Wine, we understand that they are bread and wine no longer, but the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Blessed Lord. He is as truly present in our midst as He was with the Apostles. However, that presence is radically different in its realisation. Jesus is present in a hidden manner; but He has promised to come to us at the end of the age fully revealed in all His glory, as we proclaim in the Nicene Creed, "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead." As such, there is a tension in Catholic belief between the presence of Christ with us now, as He promised in Matthew 28:20, "And lo, I am with you always, even to the very end of the age," and our hope in His second coming. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it,

The Church knows that the Lord comes even now in his Eucharist and that he is there in our midst. However, his presence is veiled. Therefore we celebrate the Eucharist "awaiting the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ," asking "to share in your glory when every tear will be wiped away. On that day we shall see you, our God, as you are. We shall become like you and praise you for ever through Christ our Lord" (#1404).

As such, the Eucharist bridges the gap between Christ's first coming and His second. On the one hand, it is the Memorial Sacrifice of His Passion, reminding us of our redemption and enabling us to appropriate the grace won for us on the Cross. On the other hand, it drives us on to the fulfilment of that redemption--the grace we are given making us worthy of eternal salvation--when we will see the Lord face to face. Pope Benedict, in the second volume of his study of Jesus of Nazereth, reflects on this truth:

The Church greets the Lord in the Holy Eucharist as the one who is coming now, the one who has entered into her midst. At the same time, she greets him as the one who continues to come, the one who leads us toward his coming. As pilgrims, we go up to him; as a pilgrim, he comes to us and takes us up with him in his "ascent" to the Cross and Resurrection, to the definitive Jerusalem that is already growing in the midst of this world in the communion that unites us with his body (Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, p. 11).

In the Eucharist, then, we are not only promised life in the world to come, but actually made partakers in that eternal life here and now, and are being changed, sanctified, so as to be ready to meet Jesus face to face. This is what Jesus promised us in John 6:53-55: "In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."

Maranatha!
During the Mass, immediately after the Consecration of the Eucharist, the priest bids the congregation, "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith," to which there are several different responses, which each convey the Gospel tension of Jesus having come, being with us now, and coming again. The verse from 1 Corinthians appearing at the beginning of this article is the foundation for one of these "memorial acclamations": "When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim Your death, Lord Jesus, until You come in glory." That is, just after recognising Jesus, truly present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the Sacred Species, we remember and proclaim His sacrificial death and resurrection, and long for the day when He will return that ultimate time, in all the fullness of His glory. And yet, it seems, for many of us, the notion that Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead doesn't enter into our minds very often. We get so distracted by the worries and cares of this world, that the thought of it ending strikes us with the fear of what we'd lose if it did--provided that thought ever enters our minds at all. Pope Benedict cautions against this attitude:

But what is the position now in the Christian life regarding expectation of the Lord's return? Are we to expect him, or do we prefer not to?...Should this passing world be dearer to us than the Lord for whom we are actually waiting?
The Book of Revelation concludes with the promise of the Lord's return and with a prayer for it: "He who testifies to these things says, 'Surely I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!" (22:20)....
At the end of the First Letter to the Corinthians, Saint Paul quotes the same prayer in an Aramaic version, which as it happens can be divided differently and is therefore open to different interpretations: Marana tha (Lord, come!), or Maran atha (the Lord has come). This two-fold reading brings out clearly the peculiar nature of the Christian expectation of Jesus' coming. It is the invocation "Come!" and at the same time the grateful certainty that "he has come".
From the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache, ca. 100), we know that this invocation formed part of the liturgical prayers of the eucharistic celebrations of the earliest Christian communities, and here too we find a concrete illustration of the unity of the two readings. Christians pray for Jesus' definitive coming, and at the same time they experience with joy and thankfulness that he has already anticipated this coming and has entered into our midst here and now.
Christian prayer for the Lord's return always includes the experience of his presence. It is never purely focused on the future. The words of the risen Lord make the point: "I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20). He is with us now, and especially close in the eucharistic presence. Yet, conversely, the Christian experience of the Lord's presence does include a certain tension toward the future, toward the moment when that presence will be definitively fulfilled: the presence is not yet complete. It pushes beyond itself. It sets us in motion toward the definitive (Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, pp. 288-290).

The passage to which the Holy Father refers above is a beautiful Eucharistic prayer from the Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings outside of the New Testament, written between AD 50 and 100--that is, while the Gospels themselves were still being written. Below I offer the entire text of that prayer, from chapter 10 of the Didache:

And after being filled, eucharistize thus:

We give you thanks, holy Father,
for your holy name,
which you tabernacle in out hearts,
and for the knowledge and faith and immortality
which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
To you [is] the glory forever.

You, almighty Master, created all things
for the sake of your name,
both food and drink you have given to people for enjoyment
in order that they might give thanks;
to us, on the other hand, you have graciously bestowed
Spirit-sent food and drink for life forever through your servant [Jesus].

Before all [these] things, we give you thanks
because you are powerful [on our behalf].
To you [is] the glory forever.

Remember, Lord, your church,
to save [her] from every evil
and to perfect [her] in your love
and to gather [her] together from the four winds
[as] the sanctified into your kingdom
which you have prepared for her,
because yours is the power and the glory forever.

[A] Come, grace [of the kingdom]!
and pass away, [Oh] this world!
[B] Hosanna to the God of David!
[C] If anyone is holy, come!
If anyone is not, convert!
[D] Come Lord [maranatha]! Amen!

(The Didache 10:1-6, from the translation of Dr. Aaron Milavec. Text in [brackets] indicates words not in the Greek, added for clarity.)

Just as the Early Church prayed for Christ's return, so must we. The same tension between Christ's immanent, Eucharistic presence now, and the full unveiling of His glory to come, summed up in the prayer Maranatha!, reminds us of the tension of the Church and of the disciple of Christ, to be in this world, and yet to hope for a better one. The pledge of future glory contained in the Eucharist calls us to set our hopes on Heaven, to store up our treasures there, and to call all people to have that same hope.

Food For the Journey
In light of the fact that the Eucharist prepares us for the life to come, the ancient Church adopted the practice of administering the Sacrament to the sick and dying. St. Justin Martyr, writing around AD 150, describes how after Mass, the Deacons would bring the Eucharist to those who were not well enough to attend the Church. The union with the Resurrected Lord brings the needed grace to the dying person to "cross over" into death and new life. In this context, the Eucharist is referred to as "viaticum", a Latin term conveying the meaning of "Food for the Journey."

[T]he Church offers those who are about to leave this life the Eucharist as viaticum. Communion in the body and blood of Christ, received at this moment of "passing over" to the Father, has a particular significance and importance. It is the seed of eternal life and the power of resurrection, according to the words of the Lord: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." The sacrament of Christ once dead and now risen, the Eucharist is here the sacrament of passing over from death to life, from this world to the Father (Catechism, #1524).

Since, then, Jesus is with us through the Eucharist, we need not fear death, but can rest in the confident hope of being united with Him in paradise. This is the great promise of the Eucharist, as the Catechism again reminds us:

There is no surer pledge or dearer sign of this great hope in the new heavens and new earth "in which righteousness dwells," than the Eucharist. Every time this mystery is celebrated, "the work of our redemption is carried on" and we "break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ" (#1405).

Conclusion
Thus, when we come together to celebrate the Eucharist, let us truly lift our hearts up to the Lord, who has come down to dwell with us in this Blessed Sacrament--not so that we will have peace and prosperity here and now, but in order that we will have the grace to truly live sanctified lives, as pilgrims making our way to a better home. Whether we come to that better home through our own death, or whether we will live to see the Lord's triumphant return with our own eyes, Jesus in the Eucharist will make us more like Him, so that when we meet, He will welcome us to that Heavenly Banquet, unto which the Spirit of God and His Bride, the Church, bid us, "Come!" (cf. Revelation 22:17).

Having passed from this world to the Father, Christ gives us in the Eucharist the pledge of glory with him. Participation in the Holy Sacrifice identifies us with his Heart, sustains our strength along the pilgrimage of this life, makes us long for eternal life, and unites us even now to the Church in heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saints (Catechism #1419).

Maranatha! Amen!

Feast of Corpus Christi

(Category: Catholic Distinctives: Sacraments--The Eucharist)