Apostles and Nicene Creeds Part 5 : The Holy Spirit

Hey everyone. Thanks for visiting. I hope someone somewhere is learning something here – I know I am.

Apostles: “I believe in the Holy Spirit.”


Nicene: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.”

      I cannot say enough about how important it is to understand the creeds. They have context, historical placement, and character that reflect the development of our faith. One of these days I will have to write a bit about that – the development of the Christian Faith. I have been mentioning it to you in the Creeds series if you have been following, but none is so evident as these passages from either creed.

       Any lay person can see there is a huge difference in the two. What does this suggest? Does it mean the people who wrote and recited the Apostles creed didn’t believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Why did they stop so soon in the confession of faith? One thing most might not think of is that statements of faith are not typically defined until they are challenged. It is not that the Bishops of the early fourth century made up the teaching or that Sts. Peter and Paul did not agree or understand the later profession (the Nicene). Rather, the Church developed an understanding about their beliefs and received better clarification after years of challenging heretics.

       This part of the creed is a continuation of the entire aim of the creeds themselves, which is our statement about our God as has been revealed to us. Will anyone argue that God has revealed himself to mankind over many occasions and periods of time? I doubt a reasonable person would. Then this part of the creed is no different. We find a pattern in the creed at this point that the person of deity is named and then reference is further clarified as to single that person out and then show a relationship. In the beginning we read “I believe in God, the Father… maker…” then read “and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,” and start to conclude with “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord… who has spoken through the Prophets.” We observe that we don’t just believe in any old God, or any old Holy Spirit; we come 200 years later in the Nicene Creed to explain precisely who and what we are talking about. We do so with the Holy Spirit by first defining who the Father is, and then the Son, so that when we state “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” we know clearly who we refer to – there is no mistake – it is a definitization of our faith – a Dogma.     

       This understanding of Dogmatic Theology is incredibly important, and unfortunately unpopular among Catholicism’s critics. The opposing believer will argue that all Truth is only found in the Bible. We call this infallibility, or Sola Scriptura, that the Bible is the one rule of faith for a Christian and contains all the teaching necessary for salvation. A discussion will be held another day to persuade this otherwise in a charitable fashion. One cannot argue though the revelation God has given over the Holy Spirit. Would one in the time of King David have said that the Holy Spirit is of the same deity as God? No. Would one have said in the time before the Prophets that the Holy Spirit spoke though them? No. Would one who walked next to Jesus have been able to understand the fruits, gifts, and inspirations of the Holy Spirit? No.

       In the OT, the Holy Spirit was selectively poured out on Kings, Patriarchs, and then Prophets as a means of guidance. We believe now, that that very same Holy Spirit guides a willing Christian. Jesus said in reference to this in John 14:14, that the Holy Spirit would come and teach everything, and remind them of everything Jesus had said.

       The Holy Spirit is also the “giver of life.” Adam inhaled this from God in order to breath – before the fall. Jesus breathed the same on the Apostles in John 20:20 “He breathed on them and said “receive the Holy Spirit.”” This is the real life giver and so it makes its appearance in the Nicene Creed. In ancient times, the breath in ones body was a sign of life. According to Jesus, one is not saved but through being born of Water and Spirit (John 3:5). St. Paul tells us that “the Spirit brings life” (2 Cor 3:6).  Since it is the Holy Spirit who pours out charity in the hearts of the faithful (Gal 5:5), he is the source of all true life in God. Therefore in our creed we profess the Spirit is the “giver of life.”

Here’s a video from Jimmy Akin:

And one from thebomb.com (not really) Fr. Barron:

Done writing for now. Comment and start a discussion.

Apostles and Nicene Creeds Part 4

Hey everybody. Hope everyone in America reading this had a great 4th of July weekend. I get some views from others in other countries. Not sure if they actually read it. I'll never know and wont let it bother me either. Thanks for reading this, anyways.


Alright, back to the creeds:

I don't know how I made this mistake before, but the Apostles Creed according to my source, does not have "according to the scriptures." A very important part of the Nicene Creed nevertheless.

Apostles: "he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead."

Nicene: "he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end."

       First, I want to touch on a piece from a previous part of the Nicene Creed, the part that says, "he descended into hell." We have mention of this, for what reason? Did Jesus go to hell? Did he make a visit to the devil and beat him up for his lunch money? No. He didn't. The term "hell" is used in our culture as the place that people go who do not have salvation, the people who choose a life other than with God. Historically, and in the particular meaning of this creed though, "hell" is meant to mean nothing more than the place that the dead go - which is in the ground. It simply means that we believe Jesus was buried. It is mentioned to give further edification that Jesus really died, not just passed out or something else. He really died, and was thus buried as such.

       I wanted to touch on that because we have in today's blog "he ascended into heaven." Now, when we read "he descended into hell... he ascended into heaven" we want to weigh these two places with equal measure simply because of our understanding, our lexicon, and its cultural inputs. Try not to do that, ever. Understand first what that writer was attempting to say, period. Doing otherwise gets us into the hermeneutical anarchy we have among the Body today.

       The rest of this part of the creed(s) places emphasis on the place and purpose that Jesus has in our salvation history. It is both historical and prophetic. "he ascended... he is seated... he will come again in glory to judge..." Here we have what Jesus did, what he is doing, and what he will do.

       The Nicene creed mentions that Jesus will come in "glory." You should understand this word to mean "power, might, etc,."

       Lastly you must agree as any sort of Christian that "his kingdom will have no end." This is one part of the Church that I didn't completely understand before I was Catholic. James Cardinal Gibbons relays in his famous book "The Faith of Our Fathers" that the Church has five distinctive (and extremely biblical) characteristics - one of which is perpetuity which essentially means "never ending." Hebrews 12:26 reads "since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken." In Matthew 16:18 Jesus indicates to Peter that "upon this rock" Jesus will build his church, not yours and mine, and that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it." "Prevail against" is actually one Greek word, katischyō, which means that this other "hell" or "hades" will not "over power" or "be superior in strength." Notice that Jesus as Jesus said to Peter about "my church" we believe the same about "his kingdom."

       This was actually a huge argumental win for Catholicism for me when I was investigating. The idea, biblical, that in order to be a real part of the body which is the church, that church has had to have existed forever - which only the Catholic Church can claim. Protestants, orthodox, and others cannot claim this as they chose to separate from the church in differing millenia. But as sadly mistaken by many protestants, the Catholic Church teaches that each of the true followers of Christ regardless of denomination are part of the Body of Christ - not just Catholics. Again, it was a huge win for me when I learned what Catholics actually believe and where they actually come from.

Jesus will be king of all, and will reign for all time.

Apostles and Nicene Creeds Part 3

Where did we leave off? Oh yeah… I should have added “born of the Virgin Mary” to the Apostles creed.  But I digress and continue where I left off last:

Apostles: “… suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; in accordance with the scriptures.”

Nicene: “For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again, in accordance with the scriptures.”

                It’s not hard to see the progression of the understanding of the faith, and the detail that was later poured into the new (Nicene) creed.  We observe the mention of Pontius Pilate, but why? What does Pilate have to do with our profession of faith? Should the Church Fathers have included only points about God, Jesus, and the Resurrection? It’s hard to say. What we submit though, is that Pilate was an instrument of God (just as Pharaoh was), and so where the Jews who turned him over. The Bible actually reads pretty chillingly that God opened salvation to the Gentiles because the Jews did not believe, and to make them jealous (Rom 11:11); I think we rarely consider this. It’s really another mystery of Gods work.  The point of Pontius Pilate being mentioned though is to properly give historical accuracy to the death of Jesus – because that’s what this portion of the Creed is about – how and when he died.

                Some would say he died a unique death. I disagree and so does history. Many at his time were *reportedly* creating signs, and making claims, and killed for it – but Jesus’ ministry was different, and his claims were as well.  In fact, in Acts we read that the high priest Caiaphas warns everybody to beware the Christians because they simply ‘aren’t going away’ as the followers of the other potential messiahs did. That’s pretty crazy if you ask me! To preserve history (since scripture in the New Testament had not yet been canonized) it was necessary to include this to show precisely the point in time that Jesus was killed. There is no mistake about the mentioning of the Roman Prelate in his death. Notice that the translation is “suffered under” and not “suffered at the hands of” or “killed by” – it was under the reign of Pontius Pilate who became a notable figure in other means as well in Roman history. It is a distinct reference to the time and place that Jesus suffered his passion.

                The next interesting part is “in accordance with the scriptures.” Now, I get the feeling that many Protestants are vaguely familiar with the creeds in either form. Catholics read the Nicene at Mass and should be somewhat familiar with it – but I wonder how many trip over this part about the “scriptures” or just read right through it. Has the reader of this blog considered which scriptures the creeds are referring to? First off, it should be recognized that the reference is found not only in the creed but in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures” (15:3-4). Twice Paul refers to the scriptures. It cannot be any more evident that Paul was referring to the Old Testament just as the creeds are.  We might recognize the story and see the connection with “scriptures” as the NT, but remember, the creeds, both of them, are older than the canonized Bible – the Nicene by almost 80 years.    

With Paul saying this and it being then inserted in the creeds it is the equivalent of saying “in order to fulfill the prophecy about his life, death, and resurrection.” His virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14, His (God’s) son in Isaiah 9:6-7, his death for us in Isaiah 49:6 and 42:1-4, suffering foretold in Isaiah 53:3, rejected by rulers in Psalm 118:22, betrayed by 30 pieces of silver in Zachariah 11:12, and many more. The creed is vital to our Faith. It’s like a mini-new testament – before the New Testament was even new or a testament at all.  

Nicene and Apostles Creed x2

This is part two. Welcome back.

Apostles: And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit.  

Nicene: I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the father before all ages. God from God, Light  from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through Him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. 

So why the expanded profession of faith? Was it not enough for the Council of Nicaea to only believe in the three facts surrounding Jesus as we see in the Apostles creed? Surely, outside of this creed we believe many things; but why place something into a creed? What is so important about a creed?

What the average follower might not consider is the progression of the faith. Jesus tells the apostles in John 14:26 that "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit —the Father will send Him in My name—will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you." The first century Christians surely believed in the risen Christ and Peters confession of Him as the Son of God, but these beliefs were challanged in time and added to with heresy. The Gnostics didn't believe that Jesus was flesh, and therefore we have institutions of faith in the creed that say "and became man."

The Council of Nicaea devoted its efforts to many controversies but the chief reason for the council was to address Arianism. Arius was a priest in the late second century who eventually denied the deity of Christ - that he was not God. Much of his debate was with the relationship of Jesus and God, making one lesser than the other. Arius ended up convincing many people of this great lie.

Without boring the reader, can you now see why the Nicene creed places more emphasis on the person of Jesus, His relation to the Father, and His nature as the God-Man?

Meditation: focus and ponder on the progress of the Christian faith. We come to understand our faith more clearly when it is challenged by a heterodox teaching. We did not see much in the Bible about an argument for or against a trinitarian God, or a dispute about His birth of a virgin because while those were beliefs of orthodox Christians, there was no need to defend it because there was no adversary to its teaching. Chew on it.

Nicene and Apostles

 

I'm going to be comparing the Apostles Creed with the Nicene Creed over the next month as well as some interesting facts and meditations. Enjoy.

Apostles: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth.
Nicene: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible.

The Apostles creed is as early as the close of the first century. It was created to be interogative as well as a profession of faith. The Nicene creed was created at the Council of Nicea in 325ad shortly after the Edict of Milan as signed into law by Constantine which legalized Christianity in the Empire.

Your medetation: why did the Nicene creed add "one" before God and "all things visibe and invisible"?

I started this blog cause...

Hello everyone!

Yes, its been a few weeks - a couple months maybe. idk. Well there is a lot to say and there is nothing to say. I've been busy and quite frankly I think I came to a conclusion that Ineeded a break from blogging. It can be pretty consuming. It can turn into a self-worshiping craze. I found myself checking stats to see how many and when people were viewing my blog. Of course, I do all this for God, but seriously I not dim enough to ignore the fact that I want to be heard, too. And that can be a problem.

I started this blog with the intention of defending the faith. But something weird happened. I have been formally educated, prayerfully guided, and authentically honest with myself and others. As I searched for answers to the harder questions of faith, searched history, and actually looked at the primative church... well we all know the story... I became Catholic. I said I would go wherever God wanted me to - except for the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, when you tell God you wont do something, it happens.

So I found myself writing about things that people really disagreed with. I found myself at odds with my own wife. I found many friends who love the Lord (this I still know) not wanting anything to do with a spiritual conversation with me. I guess I got a taste of something I had to tell everyone about. I found support nearly non-existent. It seemed the moment I mentioned the faith, historical Christianity, or mentioned a rosary - nobody wanted to listen. Yes, it did get me down. I wont hide from the reader that I fought God on this. I played the ignorant card "well all this makes sense, but its just a good argument, right?" or "Its just religion" or "I can just be a satisfied protestant and keep everything from unhinging right before my very eyes, right?" No. I knew after a while, that with the unshakable Truth that God showed me, that I could not hold back any longer.

So I became Catholic. And I love it. I was in the line for the confessional today at noon - in downtown Omaha. I saw a line backed up to the door with people waiting to be heard. Incredible! Six months ago, if I saw this I would have gladly shook it off as a well-convinced bunch of people who didn't properly understand that God is the forgiver of sins. And to that statement, I would have been right. "Only God can forgive sins" is what the people said in reply to Jesus when He forgave and healed the blind man. Pretty arrogant of me to be the arbiter of God. Yes, God forgives the sin, but God also has the authority to choose how He wants that to happen. He chose His son Jesus Christ to do this, and His son chose Apostles to continue in His ministry.  So I observed the line of men and women, young and old, taking time out of their work week - probably unpaid - to properly receive grace through the Sacrament of Reconciliation - to humbly commit to confessing their darkest moments - to saying no to Satan, the father of deception, who wills us to think that we abuse the sacrament and that God will only forgive you one more time. I don't honestly know what is a more beautiful sight: nobody at the confession line because there needs not be, or many coming to be forgiven.

Like I said, I started this blog with the intention of defending the faith, not thine own faith. There is a lot to talk about, too.

So anyways, I hope I'm back more regularly. Please continue to read. Please continue to pray. Please continue to say "yes" to God no matter where His voice leads you.

Martyred for an Name

Catholics have what is called a liturgical calendar. I can’t get into the full use of it here but one of the facets that the liturgical calendar has is the feast days of Saints. Now, there are to what I know, more canonized and beatified Saints than the liturgical calendar can fit, but does reserve feast days for those Saints we admire the most. Two weeks ago, on 7 March, the feast day of Sts. Perpetua and Felicity took place. Yes, perhaps I should have written about it then, but these are two saints that we should remember and reflect on throughout the year.

During the reign of Septimius Severus the persecution of Christendom was horrifying. One such punishment to temp others away from the faith was to tie two legs, each to a bent tree. Once the martyr was given the chance to submit to pagan practices and renounce their faith the soldiers would let free the bent trees, ripping the body in two. Others were nailed to crosses, while others were fed to lions and bears. The persecution under Severus was widespread. Edicts were systematic to persecute the clergy, then the deacons, then the laity, and even their children.   

Felicity and her friend/slave Perpetua were of this persecuted lot. They were arrested along with two other men (Saterninus and Secundulus), and were all what is called catechumens which are those entering the church along with a baptism. Felicity recorded all that occurred during their imprisonment up to their eventual martyrdom. She records that her father tried to convince her to give up her faith, for the sake of the family (namely disgracing the name). Under the law at the time of their execution, a pregnant woman could not be killed – which saddened Felicity that she might not get to taste the pains of her suffering in Christ. She had her baby just two days before the games and was then shipped out for the games.

Of the two men, one does in prison, and the other fell to the wild beasts before the crowd. The two women were also scourged as to attract the bloodlust of the wild animals. Finally, after many wounds, they gave each other a kiss of peace and took their final blows by a sword. The year was 203.

The rest of the account, their death, was recorded by an eyewitness. "But Perpetua, that she might have some taste of pain, was pierced between the bones and shrieked out; and when the swordsman's hand wandered still (for he was a novice), herself set it upon her own neck. Perchance so great a woman could not else have been slain (being feared of the unclean spirit) had she not herself so willed it."

                Their story is one of vivid memory, but is also one that can have a patrons effect on specific individuals. Mothers, for example, can recall their pregnancy and thank God that Jesus’ words weren’t fulfilled in their lives while carrying his cross, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and your children. Look, the days are coming when they will say, ‘The women without children, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed, are fortunate!’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?” (Luke 23:28-30, HCSB)

                Others whom these martyrs might be patrons for are the elect, and the modern catechumens. These are the groups of those seeking to enter into communion with the church, baptized and not baptized. As we are all on our journey to know Jesus, find our way through the church, and to learn of our history and our faith, we are vulnerable and sometimes even unfaithful. But here we have a group of believers who never got to taste the Eucharist, did not have the Water of Life flowing in them, and had not been anointed with the chrism oil. There are some who claim the glorious title Christian; but here are four who took on the name as an insult – with their lives. Amazing faith to die for a church and a religion an idea and a faith that they hadn’t yet even come full circle on!

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads:

“Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized” (1281).

Primative Persecution: Tarcisius

I want to share a story of persecution from the primitive Church.

When the emperor Valerian ordered the execution of bishops, priests, and deacons, Christians attended Mass in basements and in the catacombs outside the city walls. Deacons would take Communion to Christians for whom getting to Mass was too dangerous. On one such occasion, no deacon was available. The priest did not know what he would do until his alter boy, a young Roman boy of 11 names Tarcisius stepped forward after Mass and said that he would carry Communion to some Christians waiting inside the city walls. The priest admired Tarcisius for his grit, gave him the Sacred Hosts wrapped in silk along with a quick blessing, and sent him toward the city.

All was going well until Tarcisius ran into some pagan boys his own age who asked him to come and join their game. Tarcisius thanked them, explained he had an errand to run, but said he would join them later.

“Oh! Christian boy.”  One of the pagan boys sneered. “Is is that you think you are too good to play with us?” And they circled around Tarcisius.

“Not at all,” said Tarcisius. “I have something to deliver and must be on my way.”

“Well – show us what it is! What is the big secret, Christian boy?”

“It is no business of yours,” said Tarcisius, looking each of the boys squarely in the eye. “Now step aside and make way.”

Rather than step aside, the pagan boys closed their circle around Tarcisius, and as they did they picked up heavy sticks and rocks from the ground. One of them shouted, “I bet he’s carrying the Christian Mysteries!”

“Are you, Christian boy?” demanded another. “Show us!”

Tarcisius, clutching his precious cargo to his chest made a dash for what looked like an opening in the circle, but he was not quick enough. The mob of boys closed in around him and they began to club him with stones and heavy sticks. Tarcisius did not cry out, but quietly prayed, ever clutching the Blessed Sacrament to his chest.

The pagan boys beat him to death.

With bloodies hands, they seized the bruised and broke n body of Tarcisius and tried to twist the silk cloth carrying the Eucharist out of his dead arms. Although he had no life left in him, Tarcisius would not let go of our Lord. The boys tried for hours to pry his arms open but they failed and failed again. They left Tarcisius body by the side of the road for the vultures to eat.

After a time, some Christians went looking for Tarcisius, and when they found his broken and bloodied corpse still clinging to the Blessed Sacrament, they guessed what had happened. Carefully lifting the small boy's body, they gently bore it back to the priest, who by now had grown deeply concerned about his young altar boy. Christians set the boy’s body at the foot of the priest, who knelt down and quietly brushed Tarcisius’ hair, matted with blood, away from his face and with his thumb made the sign of the cross on his forehead. At that moment, Tarcisius’ body unfolded its arms and released the Blessed Sacrament to the priest, and all who witnessed this knew that here was a Holy Christian boy who had held Jesus in his arms and who now was being held forever in the arms of Jesus.  

The young boy Tarcisius’ was canonized and his feast day is 15 August.

The story was taken from Catholic Answers magazine from the March-April 2011 issue, p. 11.  

Praying to the Saints for Intercession

One of the oldest beliefs of Christians is the invocation of the Saints. Others might refer to this similarly as the “cloud of witnesses” or the "Communion of Saints." Before the close of the first century this became a prominent part of what is now known as the “Apostles Creed.” This creed is the oldest creed known to the primitive church and until the recent past, most Christian denominations held close to this creed and recited it regularly. The professions of faith in the creeds are not mere religious utterance – they are claims and beliefs that the early martyrs thought worthy of death and torture. Justin Martyr is a notable figure who was known for his many letters to the Caesar at the time, defending and clearing up the claims behind the notorious creed.

But many Christians most prominently the Protestant believers will say off hand that they believe in the Communion of Saints but toss away its true meaning. Now I must not write this with the reader thinking that what I am writing is a predominately Roman Catholic belief, it is, but the true meaning I will explain and defend is a belief of the most primitive of Christianity, and even the most primitive of the people of God. The more one study’s the primitive church, the more that person will come to see the Catholic Church as it still is today, unchanged, just as promised, “and the gates of hades will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). So let us explore the true and original meaning of the “Communion of Saints.”

I could begin by quoting the voluminous quotations from the ecclesiastical writers of the early church as to the beliefs of the intercessions of the angels and dead saints in our daily prayers, but since the Catholic Church and the Protestants have a common ally in the Bible I will start there.  First, the reader should consider that the Angels and Saints in heaven do not hear and listen and understand the picture as we humans of flesh and blood do here on earth. We are confined to a small spectrum of frequencies recognized by our limited senses produced and interpreted by the body. I suppose there would be no one who would think man on earth is limitless. But those residing in heaven we know from scripture have much more clarity, communion with Gods plan, and more. James Gibbons, an early american apologist, Cardinal of the Church and Archbishop of Baltimore, compares this to the bird who is caged and then is suddenly released from its confinement and one his spirit rises into the air he can now see everything and his understanding is that much better. St. Paul writes, “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Cor 13:12). Think of this time we live in 2012 compared to only 200 years ago. If you lived back then and had a friend who said that in a short time, we will be able to communicate from San Francisco to New York instantaneously, that person would be called a fool, and today would be called a prophet. Not only can the message be understood, but recognition of that person’s voice can be distinguished and also today we have video calling where we can see everything.  How hard is it to see that sort of capability here on earth and yet be led to believe that in heaven there are greater limitations – especially when concerning the body of Christ, which we have a personal guarantee from Himself that that body could not be broken and will last forever.

The Saints and Angels do intercede on our behalf in prayer.

As early as man has known God, man has known the angels. Let us not forget that man did not reside on earth as we know it in the beginning, but Eden was in some ways a perfect earth before the fall. The point is, the angels knew us, and us them. We see very early in sacred scripture that the Patriarch Joshua on his deathbed asks “may the angel who delivered me from all evils bless these boys” (Gen 48:16). Joshua was a man who God singularly blessed and Joshua surely could have asked for God alone to bless the children, but Joshua understood that it is useful to have others intercede on ones behalf as well. The Angel Raphael says in the Book of Tobit, “Now when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and likewise whenever you used to bury the dead” (Tobit 12:12). How would the angel have presented the petition to the Lord if he could not hear the prayer? (you may also surely notice that I have included a reference from a book known as “apocryphal” but bear in mind that the six books included in a Catholic Bible are included in the Septuagint LXX which is quoted from every single New Testament writer and from the mouth of Jesus Himself – just a quick lesson on why the primitive church held close to 72 books, and not just 66 books which Martin Luther authorized according to his own doctrinal convenience).  Back to the subject of Angels hearing our prayers. Our Lord spoke often about the angels. In Luke 15:10 he says that all the angels in heaven celebrate more for one sinner doing penance. But what is penance? It is an interior alteration of the heart and will. Therefore, the Saints are acquainted with the heavens – we do not know how – not only with actions and words, but with our very thoughts. I have to borrow a line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet “words without thought do not reach heaven.” What did St. Paul mean when he said “we are a spectacle to the world, to the angels, and to men”? It means as clearly as we can see others, those is heaven can as well (perhaps even more so).

We have discussed Angels which are easy to hold in high regard and it is somewhat more convincing to think them supernatural to us. But our Lord Jesus also says that we who enter heaven will be like the angelic spirits (Matt 22:30). Paul even says that we will have authority over the angels and judge them (1 Cor 6:3). That blows my mind to think of. We know that here on earth the Saints can intercede for us as Abraham petitioned God to save some from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and God replied gracefully, even though there were none righteous (Genesis 38). Moses also interceded with his arms raised while fighting off the Amalekites (Exodus 17). We see all over the Book of Acts and in the example of Jesus himself that we should pray for one another, asking God for blessings, mercy, healing, forgiveness, and even resurrection.

Now I ask you, how we as sinners can pray for one another and God to grant those petitions, why it is so hard to believe that the Saints in Heaven, in whom only charity abounds, cannot lend their prayers on our behalf? Is the power of the Saint relinquished only because they have passed into eternal glory? Or does an unbeliever in the Communion of Saints believe that the Saints in heaven are so caught up in the Glory of God that they are ignorant of their brethren on earth? Paul tells us in many places (not to ignore the quote I provided earlier) that we will have many responsibilities in heaven, and we see in revelation that the bowls are the prayers of the Saints which are delivered to God (Rev 8:4). In heaven charity is triumphant, and yet how can there be charity without mindfulness of those still on earth, especially when those who are in heaven know firsthand the travail Saints on earth experience?

I’ll borrow a quote from James Cardinal Gibbons once more. “To ask the prayers of our brethren in heaven is not only conformable to Holy Scripture, but is prompted by the instincts of our nature. The Catholic doctrine of the Communion of Saints robs death of its terrors, while the Reformers of the sixteenth century, in denying the Communion of Saints, not only inflicted a deadly wound on the creed, but also severed the tenderest chords  of the human heart. They broke asunder the holy ties that unite heaven with earth – the soul in the flesh with the soul released from the flesh. If my brother leaves me to cross the sea I believe that he continues to pray for me. And I he crosses the narrow sea of death and lands on the shores of eternity, why should he not pray for me still? What does death destroy? The body. The soul still lives and moves and has its being It thinks and wills and remembers and loves. The dross of sin and selfishness and hatred are burned by the salutary fires of contrition, and nothing remains but the pure gold of charity.”

Even though it is charity and faithful to do so, to ask Saints to pray, and to pray with the Saints, other of a more Pharisaical nature will condemn you saying, “you dishonor God with your idol worship, and your make void the mediatorship of Jesus Christ. You put the creature above the Creator.” How groundless and objection. Though I once too believed so, I was ignorant and assumed too much about the Catholic faith. To dishonor God would be to pray to Saints independent of God, but such is not the teaching or the practice of a Catholic. We know true and well that God is the source of all good gifts, and His perfect will supersedes all. So when we ask a Saint to pray for us, we beg them in them to pray through the merits of Christ, while we ask Jesus to help up though His own merits. We pray always in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But if this is all folly and useless then Jacob was wrong, and so was Paul, and what did Jesus mean? You deem it useful and pious to ask your pastor to pray for you. If St. Paul is with Jesus and Jesus can hear me can it not also be true that St. Paul can hear me? Speaking of Paul, do not forget how intact the body of Christ is after death and in this world as well. Think back to his revelation on the road to Damascus for Paul. When the spirit asked Paul why he was persecuting him, Paul asked who the voice was, and it was none other than Jesus. Now think a moment about this. Paul did not firsthand ever even meet Jesus in the flesh. Paul condemned and killed Jesus’ followers. I don’t think anyone has a better idea (and no one spoke more of it) of the meaning of the Body of Christ because of this occasion. See, Jesus is the body, and the body is in Jesus, and therefore when we persecute or are persecuted, Jesus is persecuted. How then can that body be separated in Heaven if it is also here on earth – as we know it as the Body of Christ? The answer is: it is not separated.

Remember that while the Catholic Church declares it necessary for salvation to pray to God, she merely asserts that it is “good and useful to invoke the saints” (Council of Trent, Sess. xxv). We ask them merely to pray to their God, which is our God, for the same things we ask each other here on earth to pray for.   

I will not depart this topic without giving some more evidence that this is an original Christian teaching. It is no mere opinion of the modern or medieval Church or some "invented" doctrine. We can disagree about the interpretation of scripture, but I submit to you to consider what the earliest Christians recorded as common faith (which by the way is the very essence of the word Catholic, meaning “universal”). I don’t think there is a single Christian who doesn’t want to be in doctrinal communion with the apostles. The Catholic Church is the only who calls themselves “apostolic” because she claims that the teaching and the authority are handed down straight from the apostles of the NT. This is a tough one for a protestant but let me at least provide your with prominent names and quotes from the primitive church. Bear in mind that when I date these, the earliest Gospel I believed even by the most faithful scholars to be 90ad, so these writings have to be very primitive. I will let the reader decide then who nowadays is in conformance with the earliest Church fathers.

Hermas of Rome – 80ad

“But those who are weak and slothful hesitate to ask anything from the Lord. But the Lord is full of compassion and gives without fail to all to ask him. But having been strengthened by the holy angel, and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do you not ask understanding of the Lord, and receive it from him?”

St. Clement of Alexandria – 207ad

“In this way is the true Christian always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already angelic of rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of Saints standing with him.”    

Early Christian Inscription – 250ad

“Blessed Sazon who aged nine years, may the true Christ receive your spirit in peace, and pray for us.”

St. Cyprian of Carthage – 250 AD

“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides pray for one another. … that if any one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go from here first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brothers and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy.”

St. Augustine – 400ad

“It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them, and to obtain a share in their merits and the assistance of their prayers.”

“For even the souls of the pious dead are not separated from the Church, which even now is the kingdom if Christ; otherwise there would be no remembrance made of them at the altar of God in the partaking in the Body of Christ, nor would it do any good in danger to run to baptism, that we might now pass from this life without it.” (City of God, 419ad).  

Discernment

Just read this great piece from the Coming Home Network. It is an article discussing a question every Christian asks him/herself, "how can I know exactly what Gods will is in every decision I make?" It's quite long, but filled with great Truth.

Discernment

by Peter Kreeft

Does God have one right choice for me in each decision I make?

When we pray for wisdom to discern God’s will when it comes to choosing a mate, a career, a job change, a move, a home, a school, a friend, a vacation, how to spend money, or any other choice, big or little, whenever there are two or more different paths opening up before us and we have to choose, does God always will one of those paths for us? If so, how do we discern it?

Many Christians who struggle with this question today are unaware that Christians of the past can help them from their own experience. Christian wisdom embodied in the lives and teachings of the saints tells us two things that are relevant to this question.

First, they tell us that God not only knows and loves us in general but that he cares about every detail of our lives, and we are to seek to walk in his will in all things, big and little. Second, they tell us that he has given us free will and reason because he wants us to use it to make decisions. This tradition is exemplified in Saint Augustine’s famous motto “Love God and [then] do what you will.” In other words, if you truly love God and his will, then doing what you will, will, in fact, be doing what God wills.

Do these two pieces of advice pull us in opposite directions, or do they only seem to? Since there is obviously a great truth embodied in both of them, which do we emphasize the most to resolve our question of whether God has one right way for us?

I think the first and most obvious answer to this question is that it depends on which people are asking it. We have a tendency to emphasize one half of the truth at the expense of the other half, and we can do that in either of the two ways. Every heresy in the history of theology fits this pattern: for instance, emphasizing Christ’s divinity at the expense of his humanity or his humanity at the expense of his divinity; or emphasizing divine sovereignty at the expense of free will or free will at the expense of divine sovereignty.
Five general principles of discernment of God’s will that apply to all questions about it, and therefore to our question too, are the following:

1. Always begin with data, with what we know for sure. Judge the unknown by the known, the uncertain by the certain. Adam and Eve neglected that principle in Eden and ignored God’s clear command and warning for the devil’s promised pig in a poke.

2. Let your heart educate your mind. Let your love of God educate your reason in discerning his will. Jesus teaches this principle in John 7:17 to the Pharisees. (Would that certain Scripture scholars today would heed it!) They were asking how they could interpret his words, and he gave them the first principle of hermeneutics (the science of interpretation): “If your will were to do the will of my Father, you would understand my teaching.” The saints understand the Bible better than the theologians, because they understand its primary author, God, by loving him with their whole heart and their whole mind.

3. Have a soft heart but a hard head. We should be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves,” sharp as a fox in thought but loyal as a dog in will and deed. Soft-heartedness does not excuse soft-headedness, and hard-headedness does not excuse hard-heartedness. In our hearts we should be “bleeding-heart liberals” and in our heads “stuck-in-the-mud conservatives.”

4. All God’s signs should line up, by a kind of trigonometry. There are at least seven such signs: (1) Scripture, (2) church teaching, (3) human reason (which God created), (4) the appropriate situation, or circumstances (which he controls by his providence), (5) conscience, our innate sense of right and wrong, (6) our individual personal bent or desire or instincts, and (7) prayer. Test your choice by holding it up before God’s face. If one of these seven voices says no, don’t do it. If none say no, do it.

5. Look for the fruits of the spirit, especially the first three: love, joy, and peace. If we are angry and anxious and worried, loveless and joyless and peaceless, we have no right to say we are sure of being securely in God’s will. Discernment itself should not be a stiff, brittle, anxious thing, but—since it too is part of God’s will for our lives—loving and joyful and peace-filled, more like a game than a war, more like writing love letters than taking final exams.

Now to our question. Does God have just one right choice for me to make each time? If so, I must find it. If not, I should relax more and be a little looser. Here are some clues to the answer.

The answer depends on what kind of person you are. I assume that many readers of this page are (1) Catholic, (2) orthodox and faithful to the teachings of the church, (3) conservative, and (4) charismatic. I have had many friends—casual, close, and very close—of this description for many years. In fact, I fit the description myself. So I speak from some experience when I say that people of this type have a strong tendency toward a certain character or personality type—which is in itself neither good nor bad—which needs to be nourished by one of these emphases more than the other. The opposite personality type would require the opposite emphasis.

My first clue, based on my purely personal observation of this kind of people, is that we often get bent out of human shape by our desire—in itself a very good desire—to find God’s perfect will for us. We give a terrible testimony to non-Christians; we seem unable to relax, to stop and smell God’s roses, to enjoy life as God gives it to us. We often seem fearful, fretful, terribly serious, humorless, and brittle—in short, the kind of people that don’t make a very good advertisement for our faith.

I am not suggesting that we compromise one iota of our faith to appeal to unbelievers. I am simply suggesting that we be human. Go watch a ball game. Enjoy a drink—just one—unless you’re at risk for alcoholism. Be a little silly once in a while. Tickle your kids—and your wife. Learn how to tell a good joke. Read Frank Schaeffer’s funny novel Portofino. Go live in Italy for a while.

Here’s a second clue. Most Christians, including many of the saints, don’t, in fact, have the discernment we are asking about, the knowledge of what God wills in every single choice. It’s rare. Could something as important as this be so rare? Could God have left almost all of us so clueless?

A third clue is Scripture. It records some examples—most of them miraculous, many of them spectacular—of God revealing his particular will. But these are reported in the same vein as miracles: as something remarkable, not as general policy. The “electronic gospel” of health and wealth, “name it and claim it,” is unscriptural, and so is the notion that we must find the one right answer to every practical problem, for the same reason: we are simply never assured such a blanket promise.

Darkness and uncertainty are as common in the lives of the saints, in Scripture as well as afterwards, as pain and poverty are. The only thing common to all humanity that the gospel guarantees to free us from is sin (and its consequences, death, guilt, and fear), not suffering and not uncertainties. If God had wanted us to know the clear, infallible way, he surely would have told us clearly and infallibly.

A fourth clue is something God did in fact give us: free will. Why? There are a number of good reasons—for instance, so that our love could be infinitely more valuable than instinctive, unfree animal affection. But I think I see another reason. As a teacher, I know that I sometimes should withhold answers from my students so that they find them themselves, and thus appreciate and remember them better—and also learn how to exercise their own judgment in finding answers themselves. “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” God gave us some big fish, but he also gave us the freedom to fish for a lot of little ones (and some big ones) ourselves.

Reason and free will always go together. God created both in us as part of his image. He gives supernatural revelation to both: dogmas to our reason and commandments to our will. But just as he didn’t give us all the answers, even in theology, in applying the dogmas or drawing out the consequences of them, so he didn’t give us all the answers in morality or practical guidance, in applying the commandments and drawing out their consequences. He gave us the mental and moral equipment with which to do that, and he is not pleased when we bury our talent in the ground instead of investing it so that he will see how much it has grown in us when he returns.

In education, I know there are always two extremes. You can be too modern, too experimental, too Deweyan, too structureless. But you can also be too classical, too rigid. Students need initiative and creativity and originality too. God’s law is short. He gave us ten commandments, not ten thousand. Why? Why not a more complete list of specifics? Because he wanted freedom and variety. Why do you think he created so many persons? Why not just one? Because he loves different personalities. He wants his chorus to sing in harmony, but not in unison.

I know Christians who are cultivating ingrown eyeballs trying to know themselves so well—often by questionable techniques like the enneagram, or Oriental modes of prayer—so that they can make the decision that is exactly what God wants for them every time. I think it is much healthier to think about God and your neighbor more and yourself less, to forget yourself—follow your instincts without demanding to know everything about them. As long as you love God and act within his law, I think he wants you to play around a bit.

I’m happily haunted by Chesterton’s image of the playground fence erected around the children on top of the mountain so that they could play without fear of falling off the side. That’s why God gave us his law: not to make us worried but to keep us safe so that we could play the great games of life and love and joy.
Each of us has a different set of instincts and desires. Sin infects them, of course. But sin infects our reason and our bodies too; yet we are supposed to follow our bodily instincts (for example, hunger and self-preservation) and our mind’s instincts (for example, curiosity and logic). I think he wants us to follow our hearts. Surely, if John loves Mary more than Susan, he has more reason to think God is leading him to marry Mary than Susan. Why not treat all other choices by the same principle?

I am not suggesting, of course, that our hearts are infallible, or that following them justifies sinful behavior. Nor am I suggesting that the heart is the only thing to follow. I mentioned seven guidelines earlier. But surely it is God who designed our hearts—the spiritual heart with desire and will as much as the physical heart with aorta and valves. Our parents are sinful and fallible guides too, but God gave them to us to follow. So our hearts can be worth following too even though they are sinful and fallible. If your heart loves God, it is worth following. If it doesn’t, then you’re not interested in the problem of discernment of his will anyway.

Here is a fifth clue. When we do follow Augustine’s advice to “love God and then do what you will,” we usually experience great relief and peace. Peace is a mark of the Holy Spirit.

I know a few people who have abandoned Christianity altogether because they lacked that peace. They tried to be super-Christians in everything, and the pressure was just unendurable. They should have read Galatians.

Here is a sixth clue. If God has one right choice in everything you do, then you can’t draw any line. That means that God wants you to know which room to clean first, the kitchen or the bedroom, and which dish to pick up first, the plate or the saucer. You see, if you carry out this principle’s logical implications, it shows itself to be ridiculous, unlivable, and certainly not the kind of life God wants for us—the kind described in the Bible and the lives of the saints.

Clue number six is the principle that many diverse things are good; that good is plural. Even for the same person, there are often two or more choices that are both good. Good is kaleidoscopic. Many roads are right. The road to the beach is right and the road to the mountains is right, for God awaits us in both places. Goodness is multicolored. Only pure evil lacks color and variety. In hell there is no color, no individuality. Souls are melted down like lead, or chewed up together in Satan’s mouth. The two most uniform places on earth are prisons and armies, not the church.

Take a specific instance where different choices are both equally good. Take married sex. As long as you stay within God’s law—no adultery, no cruelty, no egotism, no unnatural acts, as, for example, contraception—anything goes. Use your imagination. Is there one and only one way God wants you to make love to your spouse? What a silly question! Yet making love to your spouse is a great good, and God’s will. He wants you to decide to be tender or wild, moving or still, loud or quiet, so that your spouse knows it’s you, not anyone else, not some book who’s deciding.

Clue number seven is an example from my own present experience. I am writing a novel for the first time, and learning how to do it. First, I placed it in God’s hands, told him I wanted to do it for his kingdom, and trusted him to lead me. Then, I simply followed my own interests, instincts, and unconscious. I let the story tell itself and the characters become themselves. God doesn’t stop me or start me. He doesn’t do my homework for me. But he’s there, like a good parent.

I think living is like writing a novel. It’s writing the story of your own life and even your own self (for you shape your self by all your choices, like a statue that is its own sculptor). God is the primary author, of course, the primary sculptor. But he uses different human means to get different human results. He is the primary author of each book in the Bible too, but the personality of each human author is no less clear there than in secular literature.

God is the universal storyteller. He wants many different stories. And he wants you to thank him for the unique story that comes from your free will and your choices too. Because your free will and his eternal plan are not two competing things, but two sides of one thing. We cannot fully understand this great mystery in this life, because we see only the underside of the tapestry. But in heaven, I think, one of the things we will praise and thank God the most for is how wildly and wonderfully and dangerously he put the driving wheel of our life into our hands—like a parent teaching a young child to drive.

You see, we have to learn that, because the cars are much bigger in heaven. There, we will rule angels and kingdoms.

God, in giving us all free will, said to us: “Your will be done.” Some of us turn back to him and say: “My will is that your will be done.” That is obedience to the first and greatest commandment. Then, when we do that, he turns to us and says: “And now, your will be done.” And then he writes the story of our lives with the pen strokes of our own free choices.

This article appears online at http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/discernment.htm. Used with permission of the author.

Baptism: Where Sins are Forgiven

There is an issue with the substance of Baptism between the Catholic and Protestant believers. Getting straight into the lesson here is the positions of each:

Protestant: Baptism is the public display of faith done as a Christian’s willingness to follow the example of Jesus. It is not required but should be accomplished early in one’s conversion. As a pastor once stated, “it is an outward symbol of an inward change.” NOTE: Protestants are not unified on this or any definition.

Catholic: Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, 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" (CCC, #1213). NOTE: Catholics are united on this definition.

The Catholic Church is a huge advocate of scripture and also are protestants. I would love to give the many references from first, second, and third century Christians regarding their agreement with the current Catholic view, but as I know I am defending the Catholic view to Protestants, primarily, I will stick to the Bible. I think personally that John and Acts are the two most stalwart scriptures referencing the need for Baptism. To begin, the Gospel of John mentions the act of Baptism with the word “baptize” four times in just the first chapter; two more times in Ch. 3. John the Baptist says that he baptized with water, but the Messiah will baptize with the Holy Spirit. In Ch. 3 we have the well-known conversation with Nicodemus about being born again. Jesus says, “I assure you, unless someone is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is born of the flesh, and what is born of the spirit is born of the spirit.”  Jesus says these things in response to Nicodemus simply looking at the flesh perspective and not the spiritual perspective. There are in fact two separate baptisms in the Gospel of John: one of the spirit and one of water; one from John and one from Jesus. We know from John 1:31 and especially Acts 19:4 that John’s baptism was to prepare hearts for the coming of the Lord. He preached in this order: 1) repent, 2) be baptized (also reflected in Matt 3:6, Mark 16:16). This is part of “Gods plan” in Luke 7:30 and part of “Gods way of righteousness” in Luke 7:29.

Before we leave the gospels we need to remember an important thing. The Catholic Church has sacraments. These are seven things the RCC holds that Christ instituted.  As an important supplement to this conversation, do not forget that before Jesus left the disciples, He then instituted baptism, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And that’s what Catholics do. Jesus gave three things for them to do as a closing statement: 1) baptize, 2) teach, 3) remember He is there with them forever.

All of this is echoed in Acts. 2:38, the crowds asked, “brothers, what must we do.” “Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Again, the story of the Eunuch in Ch.8 shows how the man had to believe “with all his heart” and then could be and was baptized. Peter in 10:48 commands the people to be baptized. Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18:8, 19:5 all show how baptism was urgent to the Apostles, and also could not be accomplished without believing. I would look up those and see the narrative conveying urgency and requirement. We continually see a common “when they heard this, they were baptized.” Finally, we observe as Acts closes in 22:16, “…be baptized, wash away your sins by calling on His name.”  

I see a continual message: believe, be baptized. I opened by pointing how the RCC views baptism, and that its purpose is twofold: 1) for the remission of sins, and 2) to be raised with Christ. The second is a tradition of the protestant churches as well, which I don’t think you will disagree with. So, the real contention is the first point – that baptism is for the remission of sins. When I was baptized, and I have heard this put no other way besides in the RCC, I was told that it was a mere symbol and that we only do it cause we should, and to follow Gods example. In that opinion I do not see the urgency, the requirement, and I do not hear remission of sin.

I have reviewed the Catechism, #1213-1284, which discuss baptism as a whole issue (it is well worth the read) and do not see where it states that Baptism is required for salvation. I do see however in #1281 that “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.” This is one of several misconceptions about the Roman Catholic Faith, that baptism is required to be saved. You said “if baptism is a requirement for salvation…” but please do not be confused by my words, I was pointing out that baptism is for the remission of sins, and not a requirement for salvation.    

The thief on the cross! This was my last straw against the Catholic teaching of Baptism (finding out later that I was mistake in what they actually teach). I looked at everything, and the last stand I took versus baptism the RCC way was the question, “if the thief on the cross was saved and guaranteed entrance into paradise, why was he not baptized?” First, there is no telling that he was not baptized. Many, many, Jews were baptized by John and others. The other important factor many overlook is that the Gospel was not in effect until Jesus was raised from the grave, which is the chief reason we are baptized – to be raised again with Christ, in His baptism (Romans 6:3). Again, John’s baptism was not for remission of sin but for the preparedness of the coming of the messiah; Jesus baptism was for the remission of sin. Third, and most importantly, baptism by the Church and the Apostles in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, was not in effect until Pentecost.  How could the thief have been baptized by a Church that was not existent? How could the thief be baptized in Christ’s death and resurrection before Jesus had died? He didn’t need to be and he probably wasn’t. 

                For a more comprehensive understanding of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches regarding the sacrament of baptism, see The Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can find this online, and look for particularly #1312 thru 1380ish.

The Largest Pillar to Fall

A devout protestant argues for months, becomes Catholic. Oh Lordie, there is so much to tell. and here is the first:

The Largest Pillar to Fall

Martin Luther said, “Justification is the article on which the Church stands or falls.”

                If the reader of this knows anything about the reformation, he/she should know that Luther was not the whole reformation, but got a serious ball rolling for others. So I will often refer back to Luther, and you might say “but I don’t like or agree with Luther.” That doesn’t matter. What matters first is why the reformation happened at all. Bear this in mind.               

                Before Luther, there were many reformers. Most of these reformers wanted a moral reformation – a challenge to a 700 year problem for corrupt positions in the Church, including the Pope.  Luther was a solid advocate of a reformation against the corruptions of the Holy Catholic Church. In his well heard of “95 Theses” there were several issues Luther addressed boldly.  Ever read them? They are available online these days. Have a look. You will see him pointing out three recurring problems: 1) the power of a Pope, 2) the corruption of the church, 3) the issue of indulgences.  Indulgences were the chief issue, but I see three common topics. Either way, these were the mainstream issues he spoke out against in the beginning of his ministry. Even during this time, Luther often was heard speaking that there was no single issue that should cause him to break free from Rome (the Roman Catholic Church). Bear in mind he was no layman, he was indeed a devout monk turned priest ordained and anointed. He wanted the unity of the Church to remain integral in whatever happened. But, his invocation as the Diet of Worms “here I stand,” and the “article on which the Church stands or falls” are central to the reformation.  Why the change of heart? He was probably angry as the years went by. Trying to have someone kidnapped, misleading them to a castle tower, and other things might do that…

                So what was the position on justification exactly? Luther’s view was Justification by “Faith Alone.” In the Latin it is “Sola Fide.” To fill the reader in, the Catholic view of Justification is and has always been ‘Faith + Works.’ To me, as a protestant at the time, this didn’t seem too foolish. Of course salvation was from Faith alone!  I recall to my mind what St. Paul says in Romans 3, about not boasting of works, because it has nothing to do with salvation. When Luther was challenged by scripture such as James 2:24, “you see that a man is justified by works and not faith alone.” Luther responded by calling the Book of James “an Epistle of Straw,” inciting it should be burned. Well there is a serious contention there between Paul and James, right? Does Paul not also say in Galatians 5:6, “what is important is faith expressing itself in love.” Does James not echo this saying, “faith without works is dead” (James 2:27). You can check out the Greek if you please about what I am saying but the best thing to do is take into context the scripture here. Paul, when he says works have nothing to do with salvation was speaking of works of the law, and later is referring to charitable works. Well, hey, so is James. James also is referring to obedience to God in the works.

                Any plain reader can see that the Catholic view is clearly derived explicitly from scripture. This is rare. I will write about it another time, but the doctrines of Christianity are very rarely explicit from the Scriptures; rather they are very implicit. It was only with new heresies that the Church saw the need to define, dogmatize, or opinionate the Churches official position. A perfect example is the Trinity. For now, just know, or learn to see that the primary reason Luther gave us for the Schism is completely unbiblical itself. Heavens knows how this actually took off as an academic apology for Christendom, but I can see where people wanted away from the corruptions of the Church. What’s terrible is that the reason for this break, “faith alone” is found nowhere in the Bible. But, don’t rush into the judgment. Catholics do not count faith as important as works, or vice versa. Any Deacon, Priest, Bishop, or Pope will tell you that the faith-filled relationship is the utmost important! It is a huge misunderstanding that the Catholic Church weighs so heavily on works.

                So I have pretty simply laid it out for the reader. You can do as I did, and check out the debates on youtube, or the ones in text. They are all over the Internet. You will see that neither back down, but I think it is easily discernible that the Catholic tradition of “faith and works” for justification is a better argument, and is biblical as well. And that brings up a big point on the benefit of the Catholic view. They have +2000 years of this belief in faith and works. It is no modern opinion, or a response to Luther, or anything else; it was echoed throughout the ages from the very beginning. This is so important as you will hear many these days say, “well, the Catholic Church does not look like the New Testament Church we observe in scripture.” Point taken. But according to whom? This can drag out a whole separate issue, but really, if we look at scripture only, and ignore traditions, we wind up in a very harmful spot. I know, I will be blasted for that, but I will explain the scripture and tradition thing another day. Stick with me for now.

If you followed along, you saw where in scripture we observe faith and works and not just faith alone. Paul said, “do not get into vein arguments.” Some would call this a stupid argument, “they both teach the same thing.” Well, yes, Protestant pastors will teach that faith without works is dead faith, but will not include works in justification. Whatever the case, if it is such a silly topic then that should certainly create some doubt in your mind for Luther’s and the other reformers (who all agreed, by the way, with Luther) reason for starting the reformation and deciding that a schism with the Church was more important.

That is the greatest pillar to fall for my foundation for Protestantism. I was not the first or the last, but after I realized that Luther was not in sync with the historical church, all of Protestantism began to make much less sense, and was much less necessary, and much less truthful.  So don’t get me wrong, Protestant churches are great, and they preach, mostly, the Truth, but it is not the whole truth. In fact, there is only one Church that says it is infallible.

Please write me with questions: shaunmc04@gmail.com