Answers to a "Pagan Christmas"

(posted previously at Ignitum Today)

Charlie gave Linus the pop quiz: what is Christmas all about? Of course, Linus proclaims the birth of Christ (was Linus named after the second Pope?)

Today it would have looked more like this:

The modern Catholic, and most Christians for that matter, has many fronts to defend, one of them being the so-called “pagan roots.” This accusation is made on many facades of the faith. For example, an objector might tell you that Christians adopted the Holy Day of Easter from the pagan celebration of the fertility goddess, Ishtar (sounds a little like Easter, right?). This time of year though, you are likely to hear the objection that Christmas is a christo-pagan holiday, a mash-up of pagan belief and Christian celebration. Here are some of the objections or accusations you might meet, and a helpful way to respond.

1. Christians invented Christmas from the winter solstice celebration of Sol Invictus.

Yes, there were mid-winter celebrations in religions outside Christianity during the time of the Early Church. In fact, like Easter, the East and the West were observing Christmas differently, while until recently, the Armenians didn’t celebrate it at all. The West led the way with a distinctive nativity-based celebration, concluding with Holy Mass. That’s the same as how you see it today. The development of Christmas was not an assimilated celebration until the 4th century. Does that mean that the Apostle John, and Sts. Polycarp and Irenaeus, three men who were apostolically connected, did not celebrate Christmas? Probably so, but there is nothing wrong with this. Merely because a Christian celebration is similar to that of a pagan one proves nothing. There is either coincidence of the celebrations in the same time period or there is influence on one another.

The objector has to ask himself the following: 1) after centuries of persecution for not observing pagan holidays, where is the proof of influence? Or/and, 2) who influenced whom? Did Christianity have the influence on pagans to begin adopting a more public and concrete celebration or did we “Christianize” a pagan event? We can observe that the two were present at the time but neither scenario is a problem with the Christian because the Church has the ability to Christianize people and celebrations alike. Light was overcoming darkness at the celebration of Sol Invictus and in Christ, darkness was defeated by the real luminousness of Christ. Paganism had a hint, but Christianity had the answer.

2. The Christmas tree comes from pagan origins and is condemned in the Bible.
The objector can have a field day with this one. Evergreens are a near-universal symbol of hope in the winter season. They represent resurrection (triumph of live over death) for the Egyptians, everlasting life for the Scandinavians and Druids, and still, agricultural anticipation (to the god Saturnalia) for the Greeks/Romans. But the tree is not recognized as a use of Christmas celebration until the time of Luther. More closely connected to the ancient church is the use of evergreen wreaths. Your objector might say that it came around the same time as the popularity of the pagan celebration Saturnalia. Let him know that Tertullian wrote as early as A.D. 190-220, that Christians hang more “wreaths and laurels” than the pagans (who hang it for the “gate gods”) at their doors. He was condemning the wreath as something worth putting hope in like the pagans did with their temples, over that of Jesus who is the true Light in which we are the actual temples of the Spirit. He wasn’t condemning the décor! He ends with, “You are a light of the world, and a tree ever green.” READ TERTULLIAN “ON IDOLATRY“ HERE (see Chapter XV)
The passage in the Bible your objector is referring to comes from Jeremiah 10:3-4.

Thus says the LORD: Learn not the customs of the nations, and have no fear of the signs of the heavens, though the nations fear them. For the cult idols of the nations are nothing, wood cut from the forest, Wrought by craftsmen with the adze, adorned with silver and gold. With nails and hammers they are fastened, that they may not totter (NAB).

Let’s get one thing straight up front: Jeremiah was not talking about Christmas trees because he was writing hundreds of years before Christmas became a celebration. He was pointing out the idolatry of the people of that day, and much like Tertullian, was warning against the idolatry of those who put there hope in earthly gods and things.

Near to this, the objector must understand that Christians are not intent on worshiping their trees and are certainly not putting them in their living rooms and entryways to deter spirits. Perhaps for some carolers and eggnog, but not for protection.

Conclusion

There is nothing wrong with the Church “baptizing” certain practices of other religions. The objector is confusing the Church of deriving its beliefs from these celebrations, with the assimilation of seasonal celebrations and symbols. Like St. Patrick did with the clover to illuminate and demonstrate the reality of the Trinity. Akin to St. Paul explaining the “unknown god” at the Areopagus. Paul did not derive the idea from the Greeks that day, and Patrick did not derive the Trinity from a leaf.

We don’t believe that Christians hold the patent on Truth. Instead, we believe that God has riddled himself to other religions. In other words, just because a specific religion does not contain the whole truth, does not mean it contains no truth. If you witness to a pagan who believes a wreath will save him, maybe you can show him how Jesus is the fulfillment of that promise of everlasting life. Then, just as with the cross that hangs from our necks, we can display a wreath to remind us what is true. In this way, Christianity has the distinct ability to assimilate the “hints” of other religions.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker writes, “If a religion is not only true but more true than all the other religions, then it should connect with all those other religions at the points where they are true.” Read “Paganism, Prophecies, and Propaganda” HERE.

- See more at: http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/12/05/answers-to-a-pagan-christmas/#sthash.L3VDBdeW.dpuf

Ignitum Today, My New Home

Readers,

I want to give you a personal and sincere "thank you" for keeping up with this blog over the recent months or further in the past.

Blogger.com provides very little in the way of statistics to see how my content is and with robot search engines, blogger.com gets overwhelmed in faux views which seriously distort an accurate portrayal of viewership. Therefore, I cannot be remotely sure what and where my viewership is coming from. But your views are a great encouragement to me anyways.

That aside, this blog has been my little side project but I am moving on to bigger things along with it. I was grateful to learn early last week that Ignitum Today accepted me to fill one of their slots as a Columnist. There I will contribute regularly on matters of life, marriage, and religion and theology that targets an audience of ages 19-39, I think. This transition provides me the change to have a real editorial staff review my content and a robust team to help me generate better writing and more attractive columns.

I have already began writing there. You can view my first two articles:

"If The Church is Boring and "Redundant", Is Marriage Too?"
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/11/20/if-the-church-is-boring-or-redundant-is-marriage-too/

and

"Call of Duty: Modern Christian"
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/11/22/call-of-duty-modern-christian/

Ignitum Today (IT) is a wonderful site to gain commentary on all things Catholic and "mere" Christianity. There are over 50 columnist of men and women, married and consecrated that you will surely find your taste in authorship from. Topics from marriage, pregnancy, pro-life, religious, prayer, and much, much more are among the content you will find. Please consider including IT in your daily and weekly reading.

I will continue to post content here, but IT will be my primary place for now. Also in the works are a website, a shaunmcafee.com and a writing community I hope to build called "The Narthex". Much more to come on those in the future.

Thank you all,

Shaun McAfee

Door-to-Door Evangelism (from an unlikely bunch)

 

Its an early Saturday morning in the month of November in Omaha Nebraska. Families are more likely doing one of two things: 1) they are ramping up to get to Lincoln to watch the Cornhuskers plan some football, or 2) they are at the grocery store stockpiling for their at home view of the game, planning to watch from the living room, their man-cave, or even their party garage. Either way, the state of Nebraska is getting ready for some football.

On that Saturday morning though, there happens to be some Churchy folk going down specific streets, Bibles in hand, offering the doors they visit a warm "hello" from their Pastor and an invitation to join in prayer or any number of activities available to gain a closer relationship with "the Lord."

Spoiler alert: these aren't Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. They aren't dressed in white shirt and tie, or 19th century recreations of Amish clothes. They are dressed in husker jackets, jeans, and are armed with bulletins and directories. They aren't offering conversions, or, perhaps they are offering reverisons though. They are Catholics.

(queue record stop sound effect)

Catholics going door to door? Catholic don't do that!

But some do. It's the recently created group at St. Robert Bellarmine Parish of Omaha, NE. Inspired by the recent book by Sherry Weddell, "Forming Intentional Disciples". The group, clever as could be, aptly named themselves "Forming Intentional Disciples". Novel, eh?

The group, at the direction and support of their Pastor, Fr. Steven Stillmunks, and under the leadership of Associate Pastor, Fr. Michael Voithofer, is set on going out on one Saturday per month to seek the existing members of their Parish. The intention is to go to their door and simply see how they are doing, invite them to a study group or other activity that fits their style, and ask them for prayers or any concern at all that we can bring back to the pastoral team.

Oops, I used the word "we" and totally blew my cover. The group wasn't my idea. I happened to call my great friend Sean Stevens one mid-summer night and he told me I should show up to their first meeting. That was summer 2013. Its now November. These Catholics take some time to get the old engine oiled up, eh?

Its a fabulous bunch.There are a number of people in the group but on our first day it was 6 going out. Sean Stevens is a self-employed shrink (I don't know how he feels about that title) who is married to a wonderful woman; they are parents to a college-age boy, Michael. Sean has said much on his blog about the formation of this group, read that here.  Beth Jareske is a mother of three, wife of one, and grandparent of several. She stays at home and helps build up her domestic Church day-by day. She is of the essence of life and happiness to me; indeed a special friend. Bill Beckman is the Archdiocese Director of Evangelism and Catechesis. This man, if you believe it, is the real Paul Bunyan. Though his hair flows with grace and some minor puff (he's going to kill me) and he doesn't have a beard, he appears to any as a 10 foot mammoth of a man, with a voice that ought to be used to preview movie trailers. He is a very merry man who knows his stuff. I hope to gain a lot of knowledge out of him in the coming future. Peter Matt, I know from the Parish golf league. A handy man with a passion for energizing others and bringing the gospel of life and forgiveness to all. He is a magnetic man with tough hands and a beautiful smile. Paul is the last. I know least about Paul. He is always urging others to attend the very popular "That Man is You" men's group at the Parish. He is a true champion for Christ in each way I can view him.

(Left to right: Peter, Fr. Michael, Bill, Sean, and Beth)

That's the group and what we do. More to come. More to learn.

Does your parish have a group like this? Are you interested in starting a group like this of your own? First, pick up the book. Second, pray about your mission and passion. Let God ignite your heard and the discern what it is you can do and make a plan. Then, execute. Contact me via this blog for any question, find me on Facebook or Google+. I am no expert on this, but I can find you the people who are. God Bless my friend.

Tradition and the Bible

When you tell your Protestant friends or relatives about the "Traditions" of the Catholic Church you're likely to receive some attention. The antithesis to a church that relies on the "Bible only" is not a church that relies on "Tradition only." That is what most objectors to Catholicism would like others to think - that we believe that Tradition somehow trumps the Scriptures. But that couldn't be further from the truth.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is an authority, but not the authority. Just as the Church also teaches Tradition as an authority, but not the authority. And the Protestant must understand this and in order to make that happen effectively, the Catholic must be able to effectively communicate this.

One thing to bring up is that Protestants actually believe in Tradition more than they think. In fact, using the Bible at all is a step of faith in the Traditions of the Church. Why? Because there is no way of determining what books belong there in the first place, that is, which writings of the early Church are inspired or not. The Bible existed long before the Reformation and was trusted as "inspired" long before Luther removed certain books. Aside from that issue, the very fact that Protestants have the Bible at all is virtue of Tradition and the Authority of the Church. How else did they receive it? There is no place in the Bible itself that names which books belong there. And in addition, to assert the notion that, "we know in our hearts which books belong" as Calvin, the Geneva Reformer wrote, is the same sort of self edifying gobbledygook the Mormons use to justify their "inspired" texts.

That point has to stick in the minds of any honest reader. The celebration of Church services on Sunday is also a product of Church decisions, not Bible only teachings. If the Bible were the only source that we need to be guided to salvation, where is the unity among Protestants? The Holy Spirit is not a spirit of division! If one disagrees with a particular interpretation there is often one more division. If someone disagrees with that branch from there, another division starts. Sooner or later the religion and system is unrecognizable. One only needs to look at Lutheranism next to a modern Reformed Baptist to see the fruits of Bible only teachings. One was supposed to be the real deal, but then came along another dissident believer who saw things differently.

And here is the point: if the Catholic Church is so wrong in its authoritative structure, how come we still teach the same doctrine for close to 2000 years? That must count for something to any discerning heart.

Summa Blogologica - Questions 9 & 10: The Immutable and Eternal God

Today I decided that I would be running together two Questions from the Summa Theologica in one post.

The first is Question 9, God's Immutability. Immutable means changeless. Not changeless by ordination or by virtue of testimony, but changeless by nature. Below I will explain better.

The other is Question 10, God's Eternity. God exists forever. Always has, always will.

In this post I will introduce a term all philosophers or theology students need to understand, and that is "a posteriori" which simply means "by effect" or "when something is derived from observation". Second, remember what "potential" things are. It is anything which can undergo a change in order to become perfected.

--------------------------------------------

Question 9

God and God alone is a changeless being. Things which change are prone to potentiality; they are seeking perfection; things that are imperfect are finite. But God is infinite, everywhere, perfect, and has no potential. God is therefore unchangeable, or immutable.

Question 10

God’s eternal nature is due a posteriori (by effect) to His essence as existence. If He is existence itself then He has always existed. Further, His other qualities as immutable and infinite make Him the only eternal being, as eternity belongs to Him alone. What must be understood is that eternity does not share and is not the same thing as time, for God created and began time and is what our finite minds can conceive as “time” but not as a thing is created or born or began – God is outside all of these.

----------------------------------------------

I tell you truthfully, even though I wrote this and it all makes sense to me, it is difficult to decipher. Spend time on these Summa posts. Your understanding of God and His "awesome" qualities will provide you with such a humility and reverence for Him. Seek the truth!

Halloween and All Saints Day

In the Catholic Church we have obligations. We are to go to Mass each Sunday and also on certain Holy Days. Halloween itself is not a Holy Day, but it is the eve of All Saints Day in which we remember and celebrate the lives of all Saints who have left this world in faith. But Protestants are removed from that. I'll be completely honest with you, as a Protestant I grew more and more disgusted with the idea of Halloween. Ask my wife. It was to the point were I was ready to stop the celebration all together!

Of course, to a Protestant it is more than just a day of dress-up and candy. We have to give them credit, its also a day for family fun. But because Protestants do not celebrate the Holy Days as the Church has for so long its not even an issue to them. The time between now and the Reformation, circa 1530-ish has diminished almost all memory that Halloween is a serious day. For them, All Saints Day is a Catholic thing. It is interesting that they still celebrate Easter and Christmas - those aren't even "in the Bible" and few are even aware that the decision to celebrate Easter on a Sunday each year was the authoritative decision of the 11th Bishop of Rome, Pope St. Anicetus (155-165). The celebration is completely Catholic through and through. But that's just Easter. You don't want to get me started on the Catholicity of Christmas so I will digress.

Halloween is a special day now as a Catholic. It's more than candy and dress-up and the occasional scare-prank which are harmless. It's a day were we prepare to celebrate, which is just as important as the celebration itself. Why else have Advent if not to prepare our hearts for Christmas? Why else have Lent if not to prepare our hearts for Easter? The eve of All Saints Day might be only one day worth, but it gives the necessary time to prepare to say a "thank you" to those who have gone before us. It doesn't just include St. Gregory, or Thomas, or the "greats" but also our grandparents, our children who might have perished, or those whom our wives have miscarried.

This Holy Day is for all Christians, not just Catholics because the Catholic Church doesn't have a patent on making Saints. Adding to that, for the Protestant or "non-denominational" (which is still Protestant) reader, please understand that the Church sees you as our family as well. We don't share all the same beliefs but Protestants can't afford to lose out on All Saints Day. So if you don't celebrate it, give it a look. I hope that sheds a little light on this special Holy Day. Think of this as less of a day of obligation and more of a day of opportunity. A day particularly set aside for thanksgiving for our brothers and sisters who died faithfully, or even less than faithfully but still with the hope of the Savior Jesus.

Book Review: Confessions of a Mega Church Pastor

I was visiting my local Catholic bookstore here in Omaha, Nebraska to look for some reading on a subject for one of my papers this semester. As I was checking out I found Confessions of a Mega Church Pastor by Allen Hunt and immediately recognized the Dynamic Catholic logo. It was reasonably priced so I added it to my purchase and went home.

What interested me about this book immediately is that I am a convert from the mega church scene as well. It is a topic I have written and blogged about before as well. In my conversion the problems in the mega church scene permeated my convictions and added to the need to find something different. I might have discovered reasons against baseline Protestantism, but the rising mega church scene added to my level of discomfort and disconnect in my faith at the time. You can ask my wife, I swore to the idea of finding a small church, even going so far as to provoke the thought of starting my own house-church. Well, it’s funny how things happen when you say “I will never” to God; I ended up joining the biggest Church there is – the Catholic Church.

That’s a story from another day but it fits well with this review. Adam Hunt is the former pastor of one of the largest Methodist congregations in the U.S. His story is inviting and personal, but also one of teaching and examination of the real treasures and genius found in the Catholic Church. Allen opens the book in an interesting way – he builds a picture, chapter by chapter, of a house. Each with different rooms and scenes, from the kitchen to the front porch, Allen takes the reader on a narrative journey through his conversion process. Throughout this house the narrative pastorally browses the challenges he faced personally and doctrinally while providing lively ways he was convinced of the Catholic faith. He tells of personal trial in details that only friends give to each other. In detail, he tells of his struggle with colitis while at the same time takes on a study for his PhD. with Yale University. Incidentally to that, Allen befriends a Catholic priest who aids him in prayer and the friendship blossoms.

He confesses his main fears and ignorance about the Catholic Church as well. Meeting a group of nuns for the first time, he was assigned to teach them but ended up learning about the tougher teachings of the Real Presence in the Holy Communion and how our devotion to Mary or other Saints is not cultic and idolatrous. Of seemingly most important to his conversion story was the moral ground the Catholic Church stands on. In his “Family Cemetery” chapter he drives by an abortion cemetery and begins to question the moral relativity that his Methodist faith stands in. He might personally stand against abortion but his denomination could say otherwise. He discusses the inner workings of the democratic system his church uses to determine its position, relative to the stalwart and steadfast moral philosophy of the Catholic Church, whose position on life and social issues is immutable and unchanged.

The read is easy and can be finished quite quickly for the avid reader. At about 150 pages, the chapters are a breeze and I finished it going one chapter a day for a week. At the end he provides an appendix with challenges and choices for the lay Catholic and the non-Catholic as well. Overall, I really suggest this book to all. I do not easily give that sort of recommendation for a book, but this one makes the cut. It is thoughtful and engaging with an added dose of apologetics. I would compare it with Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home but slightly less rigorous apologetic explanations. It truly captures the pastoral love of Allen’s previous experience, and his thoughtful conversion to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.   

Summa Blogologica - Question 8: The Existence of God in Things.

We are SO CLOSE to finishing the Summa Theologica's explanation on God's Essence (His Nature). I continuously labor to find fresh and easy ways to explain this without losing any of the "must know" knowledge. This all requires a couple reviews, so please don't get discouraged.

Once you get all of this it promotes a great quality in your reflections on God and you will also be able to understand Him in applications to your life. For example, once you understand that God is unchangeable, and understand that He IS love (not a selective and subjective love, but loves all of creation), we can have a deeper gratitude for His work in our lives, and less fear and worry when we sin. So stick with me!

Question 8 is next. St. Thomas answers the topic of God being "in" things. We say off hand that God is in things all the time (omnipresent), in acts of love, in mercy, etc. The explanation here can be extended to that, but is a more rudamentary in that we are saying that God is in things in basic principal. Don't get too wrapped up there. You'll see. In order to understand God's existence in things, you must understand God's existence at all. Links for that are below.

Remember the difference between an accident (when something is belongs to a thing but is not its essence, like a hat can be black and smelly) and nature (what a thing IS). So here we go:

---------------------------------------------------------

God is in all things as that of a being of an agent, and not simply as a part of their essence or as an accident. By this “agent” we mean that God is the first act (see God's existence as "first act"), and as such must be joined or present to the continuous movement of beings. If it is a being at all, it must be attached to it effect if it should continuously exist; God is the first cause. Further, we can extrapolate that God must be everywhere, omnipresent, due to this logical conclusion. The limitless cannot be limited, and the infinite cannot be finite. He is also everywhere in three ways: essence, presence, and power. Essence by agent of efficient cause (see God's existence), presence by perfect knowledge and infinite existence, power by creator of all things. These are not accidents in other things and so He alone is not particular but universal in His infinity of presence and power.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I said in the first post on God's existence that the concepts there would be used over and over. Here, they really matter. The take-away here is that God is everywhere because as in infinite being, which is a product of His existence and infiniteness, He must be everywhere. Review Question 7 for the infinity of God.

Are you having fun yet?

God Negotiates

On the first day, God created the dog and said, "Sit all day by the door of your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past. For this, I will give you a life span of twenty years."

The dog said, "That's a long time to be barking. How about only ten years and I'll give you back the other ten?"

And God saw that it was good.

On the second day, God created the monkey and said, "Entertain people, do tricks, and make them laugh. For this, I'll give you a twenty-year life span."

The monkey said, "Monkey tricks for twenty years? That's a pretty long time to perform. How about I give you back ten like the dog did?"

And God, again saw that it was good.

On the third day, God created the cow and said, "You must go into the field with the farmer all day long and suffer under the sun, have calves, and give milk to support the farmer's family. For this, I will give you a life span of sixty years."

The cow said, "That's kind of a tough life you want me to live for sixty years. How about twenty and I'll give back the other forty?"

And God agreed that it was good.

On the fourth day, God created humans and said, "Eat, sleep, play, marry, and enjoy your life. For this, I'll give you twenty years."

But the human said, "Only twenty years? Could you possibly give me my twenty, the forty the cow gave back, the ten the monkey gave back, and the ten the dog gave back; that makes eighty, okay?"

"Okay," said God, "You asked for it."

So that is why for our first twenty years, we eat, sleep, play, and enjoy ourselves. For the next forty years, we slave in the sun to support our family. For the next ten years, we do monkey tricks to entertain the grandchildren. And for the last ten years, we sit on the front porch and bark at everyone.

Life has now been explained to you.

A Prison Conversation on Evil

Special thanks to my good friend and classmate, Mike Brinda for letting me share this. IT sets out to discuss the problem of evil and moral evidence of God. Enjoy.

-----------------------------------------------------

Setting: Maximum-security prison, chow hall, two inmates seated at dinner

Characters: Chauncey (the Christian) and Dante (the Atheist)

Chauncey: You gonna eat your ice cream?

Dante: Fool, you know I sell my ice cream.

Chauncey: What about your burger?

Dante: Man, what’s wrong with you? Of course I eat my burger. Why you be trippin on my food?

Chauncey: I just want to be polite. Because when you’re done eating, I’m gonna kill you.

Dante: Man, you crazy! You been doing too many 8-balls, or something.

Chauncey: You know I don’t do drugs. I sell drugs, remember?

Dante: Yeah, well, you ain’t sold me no drugs, and I don’t owe you no money. And I never said nothin’ to nobody ‘bout no killin’ in here.

Chauncey: You said killin’ didn’t matter.

Dante: I never said that!

Chauncey: Sure you did, man. I been hearing you say it out on the yard, like forever. You be tellin’ the brothers there’s no God, and you be callin’ us fools for goin’ to church. Stuff like that.

Dante: Yeah, but that ain’t got nothin’ to do with no killin’? I never said nothin’ ‘bout killin’, you feel me? Man, I dunno what you talkin’ ‘bout.

Chauncey: You want me to explain before I kill you?

Dante: Man, you better come up with sumpin’, ‘cause I’m ‘bout ready to take this tray and smack you up side yo’ head.

Chauncey: You know I go to this class ‘bout church and stuff every week?

Dante: I heard.

Chauncey: Last week the teacher talked to us ‘bout good and evil. He told---

Dante: So?

Chauncey: He told us, like, if there’s no God, then good and evil is whatever you say it is, you feel me?

Dante: Yeah, man, I feel you. I be tellin’ you and the brothers that all along, but you don’t listen.

Chauncey: Well, like, I was feelin’ bad ‘bout all the killin’ I did on the street. But now, I’m like, maybe Dante’s right? If there’s no God, I can do what I want again. And what I want is to kill you, ‘cause you not part of my set, and killin’, killin’ don’t matter, right? You see what I’m sayin’?

Dante: Killin’ me matter to me!

Chauncey: You know I’m just messin with you. This teacher in my class, he called it a “hypothetical.” He said, first thing you gotta do is get people’s attention.

Dante: Bro, you got my attention.

Chauncey: I doubt it, man. I’d really have to go off on you to get yo’ attention.

Dante: Look, man, what you want?

Chauncey: Nothin’. I don’t want nothin’. Just think ‘bout what I said, bro--- If there don’t be no God, then there ain’t no good, ain’t no evil. It’s just what you say . . . what I say. And that, that don’t makes no sense ‘cause we already lived that way, and look where we be.

Dante: Man, that’s old news. Get some new material.

Chauncey: Maybe. Maybe ‘fore you start trippin’ and calling us fools for us goin’ to church, maybe you think a minute ‘bout me killin’ you, ‘cause killin don’t mean nothin’, right? You think that makes sense? Cause when you be saying there’s no God, that what you really be sayin’, man. Just act crazy. It don’t matter.

Dante: I’ll think about it. Now stop messin’ with me.

Guard: Chow time over. Let’s clear it out.

Praying to the Saints [edit]

Edited and updated, from February 2012:

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).

Summa Blogologica - Question 7: The Infinity of God

So God is "big" right? Wrong. Big is a relative degree of size and God has no size and there is nothing relative to infinite. He has no measurement. As you're about to understand, only things that are finite can be measured.

Question 7 of the Summa Theologica deals with this topic, the Infinity of God. Its easy to understand up front, but some of the details get confusing. You will need to understand potential in relation to God. That can be found in Question 2, Existence of God.




... Try to (bear with me).











------------------------------------------------------------
God is infinite. God is not finite because things that are made of form and matter are finite. The form limits the matter, and the matter limits the form. Since God has no form or matter, He is not limited and is therefore infinite.  On the other hand, things of creation are relatively infinite as their existence is related to their potential to have an infinite number of forms. However, this is not the same infinite as that of God, who is not limited by form and matter. Bodies cannot be infinite in magnitude. Because bodies have size, they are measurable, which makes them finite. If a number has infinite potentiality, this means that a number can be divided and multiplied by any number. However, infinity itself cannot be divided and end with a real result. Infinity is limitless, endless, and is like a black hole of math and existence and power
------------------------------------------------------------

Thing that have potential = finite.
Things that are measurable = finite.
Things that have body = finite.
Things that can be divided = finite.
Finite = things are limited by all of the above.
God is not any of these by His, already discussed, nature and essence. God has no potential, He is simple (no body), and cannot be divided. God - is - infinite.

I hope that sort of simplifies things. These are necessary achievements in understanding God. If you cant understand this, we cannot move further to the "unchangeable" God, the "love" of God, and others.

Sorry Jr. Asparagus but God is not bigger than the Boogie Man. God, by His very nature, is not able to be compared to the finite, like the Boogie Man.

Larry the Cucumber would ask, "but isn't infinity bigger than finite?" No. Infinity has no measurement. Haven't you been paying attention, Larry? I can see why Bob gets annoyed with him, garsh.

JK, of course. When we say "God is bigger" we are referring to power, which He is bigger.






Do ask questions. Do read this more than once.

Go here for the Summa Question 7 text and go here for the simplified version.

Summa Blogologica - Question 6: The Goodness of God

Now we get to the good stuff. The previous Summa Blogologica posts were the roots, the foundation of the rest of the understanding of God and His nature. The rest is vital as well but now we get to learn about the love of God, the good of God, and more. All the things Christians say about God that matter.

The Summa Theologica Question 5 reasons with Goodness in General, now Question 6 answers the Goodness of God. I will include the objections given by Thomas Aquinas because they help unfold the understanding a little bit.

Here we go:

-------------------------------------------------------

Article 1 consists of whether God is good. The objections state that God cannot be good because (1) good belongs to things of order, species and order, to which God is not, and (2) God cannot be good because good is desirable but God is not desirable by all as all do not know God. The reply is that God is the first and final cause, and thus he is also the cause of goodness and all good comes from Him. Why is that? Remember in Question 5 we learned that anything that has being has goodness? Well if God created everything then all goodness comes from Him. The mode, species and order are found in the essence of the cause, God is the cause. One does not need to know God as Himself, but can have natural knowledge of divine intelligence, and also all things seek their own perfection (goodness) and subtly seek God in this way.

Article 2 consists of whether God is the supreme good. The objections state that God is not the absolute good because, (1) supreme good adds something to good, but God has nothing added to him (he is not a compound being) but is simple, (2 & 3) to say God is the supreme good is to say there are other good things, but “God alone is good”. The reply to these is that the good between God and man are not univocal, that is, they are not the same thing. As creatures, we only “have” this good as imparted from the creator and is therefore limited, but God is not. God is the good - it is His very nature to be good, and not have good like us.

Article 3 consists of whether to be essentially good belongs to God alone. We know that, as all good comes from God, we must remember that God is His essence and anything coming from His emanation into thing is only possesses that thing which in this case is goodness; we have good, God is good.

Article 4 consist of whether all things are good by the divine goodness. God caused the goodness in things, and creatures are therefore good by reason of the divine goodness.

----------------------------------------------------------

Simple? What you need to know is in Articles 1, 3 and 4. What we must understand is essence/nature. For lack of easier terms, essence is nature, and they are what a thing is. We are human and so we have a human nature which has attributes. God does not have a nature, He is His nature. That is everything in understanding God. Because He is the cause of things, and nothing causes Him, He just is - period. .

Therefore, in the case of Goodness, we know that God does not have goodness, but is Goodness. The Goodness in the world is an effect of His act and will.

God - Is - Good . Its not just a nice thing we say to complement Him Questions? Comments? Gripes?

Summa Blogologica - Question 5: Goodness in General

So last blog post in Summa Question 4, towards the end I said something about the link to the Summa itself and then had a link for the summarized version. Anyone see the irony here? The Summa is short for summary. It was written by Aquinas to be a summary of the Christian faith. It ended up being, still, a very high level and difficult read. And we think often we are more intellectual than the best of antiquity. I seriously disagree. Not to say we are not advanced thinkers, but on the topics of basic philosophy and universal concepts, we fall so short of the genius of these.

With that, next is Question 5, Goodness in General. What is good at all?  Eh, who knows. Well, you’re about to know! Because Aquinas knows and now I know, I want you to know! Ya know? If you haven't done so already, make sure you have a basic understanding of perfections: do that in Question 4.

Here. We. Go:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Goodness comes from a desire for a thing’s perfection, and all things that are actual have perfection of some degree. Anything that really exists has this perfection and so "being"  does not differ from goodness in idea. In other words, we can know of a thing without knowing it is good. So there is not a REAL distinction, but an IDEAL distinction.

“Idea” is prior to a thing because we form a word in our mind which corresponds to a thing we intend it to be. We only discover goodness after we discover the thing and determine it to be good. In other words, we know of the being before we know that it is good at all.

Every being, as being is good. Because all things are in some way perfect or contain some perfection, and perfection is desirable, and perfection is what we find as goodness, all beings are good. Being = some perfection = goodness .

Goodness is the aspect of final cause because, as discussed in previously, goodness is in things which have perfection. Perfections are desirable and so are being sought out which is akin to finality “in-view” and so goodness has the aspect of final cause as opposed to other causes.

As said before, anything can be good so long that it is perfect because in this way it is desired. This goodness is ordered in a thing’s form and furthermore, a thing’s form in a things species. When a number, or given part of form is given to or added to this form, the species is changed; hence this follows as an order. Thus, goodness does consist of mode, species, and order.

Goodness is divided among either of the three but they are all different thing in their relativity to the appetite for the thing. If a thing tends toward another it is useful; if a thing for its own sake achieves its appetite completely, that thing is virtuous; but that thing which achieves its appetite to respite or rest, that thing is pleasant.   

------------------------------------------------------------------

What a blast right? The keys are in knowing what Goodness is and how virtue is thus defined. This is different from fundamental moral theology and is only discussing the goodness of THINGS, not ACTS  of the will.

 

 

Bear that in mind.

 

 

 

Think now on God calling the created world "very good" in Genesis 1:31. More like, "completion in view" than, "wow, I did a fantastic job!"

As always, for more reading on Question 5, go here for the Summa and go here for the summarized Summa.

Next we will look at the goodness of/in God.

Summa Blogologica - Question 4: God is Perfect

I took a week off. Wow. What a busy week. Did you miss it? It’s hard to even know what sort of traffic this blog generates. Is anyone reading this? Eh, who knows.

Here is the fourth question in the Summa Theologica. Is discussed the Perfections of God. You will need to remember the qinque viae (“five ways”) from question2, specifically the degrees of perfection from which we know God exists. This plays huge role in the rest of the Summa, but especially here.

As Christians we often are seen as arrogant for claiming our God is perfect,

 

but as you will see, it is a more of a requirement to be God at all, and less of an opinion on how cool or awesome He is. I don’t usually include them, but here you will see the objections that St. Aquinas answers. It’s important in some of these cause we have to know first of all what the antagonist would say, then our response.  Without further delay, here we go:

--------------------------------------------------------

Article 1 consists of whether God is perfect. The objections state that God is not perfect because (1) things that are perfect are “completely made” and since God is not made at all, he is not perfect, and (2) also that since God is the beginning and beginning seem imperfect, God is imperfect. Since God is pure act, he is perfection. With God there is not a need to compare “beginnings and development” or degrees of perfection occurring over time. God is simultaneously the end as well; in fact, He is outside time completely. So, we know that God is not just a simple beginning but is the end as well, and thus is simultaneously the beginning and end and is perfect in that. Therefore there is no being made process or perfection over time, there just is completeness always present. This is perfection.

Article 2 consists of whether of the perfections of all things are in God. The objections are that God is simple, and the diversity of the perfections in the world cannot exist in God who is simple, and also that since many things are perfect would be opposite and opposites cannot coexist, this negates the ability of perfections to exist in God. The reply to these is that we have already determined that God has no accidentals, so each of these perfections are not in God as accidents because God is His very essence or nature (He is what He is). However, since God is pure act, all of these perfections are his essence and by this we mean to say that his perfections are emanating, that his essence is always acting.

Article 3 consists of whether any creature can be like God. Thomas defends that the comparison of man to God in likeness is that of analogy. Where man can be like God in likeness, but not in genus and genre, such as that of a statue being made like a human, but is not really inversely comparable. A reflection on this in my own words comes from the creation of all things by God, which are an effect. If God caused all things in creation and we are to assume that a cause is “like” its effect then we have an insurmountable amount of things that are “like” God and cannot then tell what likeness is since we have a wide range of incomparable things. The key is participation in this likeness. We are participating in his essence, being, and substance.

--------------------------------------------------------

What’s the take away? It’s really all in Article 1, that God is perfect because He cannot achieve a better version of Himself – He just is. Things in the world can achieve perfections but these things cannot be themselves perfect. God can, and God is, because God is outside space, time, and is always was. Say it any which way you want to – God cannot get better or more good or achieve anything because He already has.  That’s pure perfection.

So when you hear “perfect,” know how it is properly used. It’s not simply, what we like most or, which is better according to an individual or a civilization, but is the achievement of what potential a thing is capable. For God, He has no potential because He is just Himself.

Now do you see why this saying in the picture below is somewhat of a contradiction to the person God is? Whoever says this is referring to God's interaction with THEIR time, not His. Right?

Want more on Question 4?

Go here for the Summa itself, and here for a summarized version.

Summa Blogologica - Question 3: Our God is a "Simple" God

 

The things below come from Question 3 of the Summa Theologiae, “Whether God is Simple.” They discuss many attributes of God, as does the great part of the Summa, all adding up to God being quite simple. You’ll soon understand what I mean. Here we go:

-----

God cannot have a body for a body is of matter and form. Matter and form are complimented by one other ingredient to make a body, which is the ability of change. Remember in the quinque viae (Five Proofs) that change was a proof of God, which made this “God” the necessary being for all other change in the world? That idea is important here for obvious reasons because God cannot undergo change (otherwise He would require a thing before and more powerful than Himself) and it directly shows why he does not have a body, by cause (a priori) and not effect (a posteriori).  [NOTE: think of a priori and a posteriori as evidence of something having happened prior to, and evidence of something having happened after, hence cause and effect]

Essence and nature are used interchangeably as terms, and God is the same as His essence or nature. Essence is what a thing “is”, e.g., humans have a nature that is “universal”. The argument against here is that God cannot be “in” Himself. That is, God does not have a body and so there is nothing to be in. However, God is just pure act, the prime mover, He is not like or akin to anything like a genus or species like offspring of another thing, He just is who He is and so whatever He is, is in fact, His very nature. “I am who I am.” Creatures receive their essence when they are created, but God was never created and so He never received his existence, but so instead He is His existence. This is a H.U.G.E. idea that the reader must remember going forward!

An accident is an external thing which is associated with a thing. For example, a hat has black color, it has its shape, its size, its smell, its taste. All of these things are accidents. So with God, we say that He has no accidents, obviously, because He does not have matter and form (hyle and morphe).

-----

In all of these ideas, as difficult to grasp as they might be, they make for what we refer to as the Simplicity of God. God is simple. Simple things are not complex. Complex things are made up of matter, form, accidents, bodies, … some have legs, eyes, DNA, proteins … but God has none of these. He might be infinite, powerful, and omniscient, but there are no complexities in God. God is simple! See?

Questions?

Reflection on Sunday Reading, 6 Oct

This little nugget is a reflection on the Sunday reading from last week, 6 Oct 2013.

The Gospel reading:

The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith."
The Lord replied,
"If you have faith the size of a mustard seed,
you would say to this mulberry tree,
'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.

"Who among you would say to your servant
who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field,
'Come here immediately and take your place at table'?
Would he not rather say to him,
'Prepare something for me to eat.
Put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink.
You may eat and drink when I am finished'?
Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded?
So should it be with you.
When you have done all you have been commanded,
say, 'We are unprofitable servants;
we have done what we were obliged to do.'"
The reflection:

The Heart Has its Reasons...“'When you have done all you have been commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do'” (Lk 17:10). Some hear these words and are a bit “put off”, maybe even feel like they've been slapped in the face. But these words were not placed on the lips of Caiaphas or Herod, but on those of Our Lord (in a parable)...and so they must be pointing to a deeper reality than mere slavish servitude. Some explain the words in terms of “serving God with humility.” No doubt this is true. But the essence of these words is perhaps at once deeper and simpler: it's about God's gratuitous, merciful, creative love. From this perspective, the passage becomes a cause of profound gratitude and joy (as well as a little lesson on the will, love, mercy, and justice of God). God did not need to create us, but He freely willed to call us into existence because He loves us. In His mercy He calls us into His service for the good of our salvation, and in His justice He endows us with what we need to serve Him according to His great designs for us. What follows is a summary of Q. 19-21 and a closing thought from St. Therese. God bless you...
 (Sister Mary Maximilian Koos)
I love this!

St. Therese on the Joy of Being “Unprofitable Servants”“We must do everything we are obliged to do: give without reckoning, practice virtue whenever opportunity offers, constantly overcome ourselves, prove our love by all the little acts of tenderness and considerations we can muster...out of love for God. But it is in truth indispensable to place our whole trust in Him who alone sanctifies our works and who can sanctify us without works... Yes, it is needful, when we have done everything we believe we have to do, to confess that we are unprofitable servants, at the same time hoping that God, out of grace, will give us everything that we need. This is the way of spiritual childhood.”

Priests and the government "shutdown"

The government is said to have “shutdown” on 1 October 2013 because the continuing resolution to fund some or all of the new fiscal year could not be agreed to by members of Congress and the Senate. There is still a mass amount of confusion for how much of the government still somehow operating.

As a result of this, some news articles have circulated that say that the priests who are contracted to give mass and perform priestly duties for military personnel cannot volunteer. These reporters have projected the idea that the priests cannot perform Mass at all. In order to understand how we got here, a few things have to be noted about fiscal law, and how volunteering is illegal according to our laws.

Few have the training and knowledge of how fiscal law works within our government. In the fiscal law there is what is referred to the “color of money” in which fiscal appropriations have three parts, 1) time, 2) purpose, and 3) amount. This means that the particular pool of money given to a department or agency of the government cannot be used in such a way that violates these three given limitations. For example, the government might allot $2 million to the FAA for Operations and Maintenance, which is good for that purpose (2), for 1 year (1), and cannot exceed the appropriation of $2 million (3). A violation would occur if the money was used to purchase a new construction project (violates purpose) that cost $2.4 million (violates amount) and was to start in the next fiscal year (violates time). These are violations of the Antideficiency Act, which disallows the government to obligate the appropriation for use and amount outside its “color of money”.

Further, our government has outlawed the hiring of volunteers for any scope of work unless authorized by statute. To hire, say, a fireman without pay is hiring a volunteer and is a violation of the Economy Act. There is a real need for this sort of law. If it did not exist the government could influence contractors to work for free on future promises, to gain merit, or any other number of reasons. The bottom line is, the government is limited in this capacity for a good reason.

This is hardly an introduction to fiscal law that would be worthy of the training necessary for those who are charged with the responsibilities of handling and spending these appropriations in accordance with the law, but for all intents and purposes, this gives you the understanding to better appreciate the situation with the priests who are “not able to volunteer”. As much as I agree with the enthusiasm for the writers covering the situation with the priests, I cannot speak well of the credibility of their portrayal of the facts. The fact is, these priests are contracted employees of the government when they perform within the scope of work given in their contract. It has been illegal at all times, funded or not, for the government to hire a volunteer since the Economy Act was penned into law after the Civil War. So the notion that the priest can’t volunteer because the government is shutdown, is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Does this mean a priest cannot offer Holy Mass? No. It would be volunteering if the given priest were to perform Mass in the capacity of their given contract though. Many have asked, “what if someone was dying? Would the priest be able to perform the Anointing of the Sick?” I would answer, does not being on duty stop a lifeguard from saving a life at the beach? The key factor would be intent. Because it is a regular duty of the priest to perform these actions, their actions are not tied to their government contract. In other words, their contract is not what makes them a priest. The meaning of the “priest cannot volunteer” is a real stretch, you see, because the real law means they cannot willfully perform their contractual duties in the capacity of the contractor.

Summa Blogologica - Question 2: God's Existence

It may be a surprise to some but the argument for God goes back further than Christianity. In fact, when Paul discusses the "unknown God" to the Greeks at the Areopagus in Acts 17, he is talking to a people who have heard some of these ideas but haven't generally accepted them. Remember, Socrates was put to death for his radical views on a single God, and his ethical ideals which closely mirror the teachings of Christianity.

Belief in one God precurses Christianity and was developed outside God's revelation to the Hebrews. Socrates, Parmenides, Aristotle and a slew of others were discussing the idea of an all powerful God.

St. Thomas Aquinas (STA) was "lucky" enough to live at the time in which the works of Aristotle were brand spanking new in Latin. He was able to "synthisize" these works. Not without controversy, he had his fair share of opposition from within the Church for "baptizing a pagan". That lesson is for another day, but what I wanted to unfold here is his contribution to the reasons to believe in a God. And this is how he chose to start out his Summa Theologiae. If he were to write a mass of information about God, he would first need to prove God exists. It was meant to be a "summary" of the Christian beliefs and teachings, but ended up for many to be a difficult read. He addresses it to those with a basic education, but to him, that would have been one filled with a good lexicon of philosophical terms - which many today are without. I'll attempt in this series of posts titled "Summa Blogologica" to ease the pain to bring forth the teachings. So lets dive in!

Question 2 (question 1 was more of a quick recap of nature of doctrine, read it here if you want) answers for the existence of God. That is, how do we know God exists? This is called his "quinque viae" or "five ways" since there are to him, five means of knowing God exists from "proof". Keep in mind this is not the sort of "proof" that is offered in labs where material hypothesis are testable, because God is not a material thing, but instead is on the basis of logic and to many "self evident" or "obvious". Here we go:

The first is motion. Where motion exists there must be a mover and ultimately there must be a first mover, unmoved. For example all things are set in motion by another, but there, by that very rule, cannot be an infinite set of movers; there has to be a prime and first act of motion. This is God.

The second is efficient cause, where like motion, there are effects in the universe and each effect has a cause. Because we know no particular thing which caused itself, each cause in turn has its father cause and ultimately there must be a first cause which is uncaused. This is God.

Third is the concern of possibility or "contingency". Things that are contingent do not have to exist (not necessary) but are only possible. Obviously, things in the universe do exist so there must have been a thing in the universe which was necessary and non-contingent. The contingent undergo change and thus are finally existent like the master bringing the sculpture out of the marble. The sculpture was possible but needed a change to come out of the material. That change is unnecessary, it ever needed to happen. Therefore anything that is unnecessary but is, we cant deduce that a necessary thing brought it into being. This necessary being is God.

Fourth is the gradation, or the degrees of perfection in which things are observed. In things we find varying levels of good and better, more and less, etc., which are smaller levels of an utmost in their category. There are levels of beauty, levels of light, levels of love, and all intellects recognize this but ultimately there has to be a best or a perfect or an utmost.  This utmost is God.

Finally, the fifth proof of God’s existence is the observation of governance in the world. Things in the world act in specific ways as if programmed (governed) like a computer and every computer has a program which requires intelligence; an intelligent programmer. This is God.

To read more go here and have some fun: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

These are VERY important themes moving forward into the Summa so please, if you follow along ensure you understand God as the "first mover" or "first act" or "prime mover" as those terms will be used a "whole heck of a lot" as my brother used to say.

Questions? Comments?  When I was a kid pictures would make reading better, here you go:

Pope Francis again interviews with an Atheist.

So the Pope once again opened himself up to an atheist reporter. You can read all about how he is "assaulting Vatican traditions" or "criticizes the Vatican's narcisism", whatever. Fact is, if you want to find something said about anything, you can and you will. 

 

Like I said before in this post, parts of the media are on a honeymoon with Francis. They want to believe and convince themselves and others that there is finally a Pope or Catholic leader who has a Liberal agenda, who supports atheism, abortion, gay rights, and women priests. But that last one, women preists, that one will always stump me. How can people even imagine that happening? That is like fighting for the right for a man to be a Nun or a Mother of a monastery.

 

So he spoke again to an athiest and this time he is being twisted to say that the Vatican is egotistical, and that anyone can and should choose their own "truth" as it apeals to their intellect. The Washington Post is the one I read first, which has the Holy See quoted saying, “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is good . . . Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.” You can read that article here. I havent found the full interview. This is what becomes of cut-and-paste reporting. The unassuming reader would be convinced the interview took a mere two minutes, and this was the apex of the conversation.

 

Understandably, this quote on its own would make the educated Catholic weary. Pope Leo XIII called for the battle against philosophical relativism in his encyclical Aeterni Patris and was followed up by John Paul II in Fides et Ratio nearly a century later, but nobody has made as strong a case against relativism as Cardinal Ratzinger did at his April 18, 2005 homily widely knows as the "Dictatorship of Relativism" homily. Check that out here.

 

But is our Francis saying anything different? Did the first Pope not say "... but that anybody of any nationality who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him" (Acts 10:35)? But taken as its own, this can mean any number of things and anyone can make a case for relativism.

 

What is even more interesting is the comments I found on the Washington Post last night. The comments do not appear for me on the regular website, but only on the mobile site, so I took a screenshot with my phone. Now, I cannot speak for the commentors, as to whether they are in favor of or think the Pope is in support of atheism, or relativist or what have you. The thing that speaks to me is the pebble in their shoe, that is, this Pope is gathering some to listen futher, which is better than a populus that wishes nothing to do with religious rhetoric.