Showing posts with label catholicism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label catholicism. Show all posts

Thursday, October 24, 2013

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).

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Quick Remarks on the Gospels

A short message on the teachings of the Church on the Gospels.

 
Major Teachings: Dei Verbum and the Document on the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted His teachings to ordinary men but through His help and the Holy Spirit they became much more than men and after some time began to fully understand their purpose as well as the purposes of Jesus’ teachings and instructions to them. There are some phrases in the world which we hear throughout our lives and think of as commonplace but as soon as we discover they come from the lips of our Lord or the ink from an Apostle of Jesus, we suddenly hold those words and phrases without hesitation as immaculate and Holy. Our Lord gave us a Church that entrusted these teachings to His Apostles and indeed instructed them to teach them to others (Matthew 28:20 NAB) but oddly enough never wrote a word and the Bible shows no explicit command to write. But they did.

Four of the Apostles wrote the Gospels doing their best to tell their audience about the Jesus they knew, each of them writing about the same Jesus. John, the one Jesus loved, wrote these words and the rest with a very personal feel and flow. Luke, the physician, writes in flavorful detail and diagnosis. Each of the other two have their personalities as well but they all teach of the same person, Jesus Christ. With this our Mother Church holds steadfast on the historicity and inspiration of all four as Apostolic origin (Dei Verbum, 18). In time the Church sorted out the accurate from the not, and assembled them in a symbolic order of the four creatures in Ezekiel and Revelation. We can trust our Church Fathers, why? Because Jesus did. We are His bride and as a perfect groom He promises to keep us from the gates of Hell (Matthew 16:18 NAB), which if she fails to tell the Truth, the gates of Hades have certainly prevailed against her.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Interview with Ex-Catholic, Baptist Pastor

Matt Fradd, author, speaker, apologist, sat with Don Smarto for a discussion about the differences between their faiths. I think Matt says something to this effect below, but let me say it as well: today we rarely hear conversations where disagreements arent hostile, and argumnets that are refreshing and constructive. This talk is charitable, direct, and on the issues where either is challenged, honest.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE WEBSITE AND LISTEN

From his website:

My Interview with Ex-Catholic, Baptist Pastor
April 23, 2013 by mattfradd
 
 
photo
Several months ago I was on my way to Chicago to deliver some talks with Catholic Answers. During the flight I had the opportunity to share the gospel with a man sitting beside me.

After the flight, at baggage claim, a man named Don Smarto approached me, he said that he was sitting behind me and had overheard my conversation.
Don went on to say that he used to be a permanent deacon in the Catholic Church with plans of starting his own religious order! He then informed me that he has since left the Church and is now a Baptist pastor living in Texas. 
Don Smarto as a seminarian.
Don Smarto as a seminarian.

Last month I happened to be in Texas, and I contacted Don. He arranged for me to be interviewed on his ABC program. A program normally devoted to “parenting today’s youth,” but for me he made an exception.

We had a very charitable discussion on what unites and divides us as Catholics and Protestants.
In our discussion we talk on a broad-range of topics:
  • The Problem of evil
  • What is the Church
  • The Protestant reformation
  • Why to Catholics believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
  • The authority of the Catholic Church
  • Pornography
  • Abortion
. . . and much more. It’s about 70 minutes long, so go grab a coffee, and enjoy!


I hope you’ll share this talk with your friends (Catholic and non-Catholic alike), as an example of how we can disagree without being disagreeable, and argue without being argumentative.
* Thinking on my feet, I accidentally said that it was the first council of Constantinople which defined Mary as Theotokos, when it was, in fact, Ephesus in 431.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

The "Extra" Stuff

The Extra “Stuff”
Recently I had a conversation with my close friend who is not Catholic, although a sure Christian. So we get to talking about his family’s history in which denomination and such, and I find out that some of his relatives/ancestors were Catholic. On a side note, I like to think that, if Christian at all before the 1540’s, all of our ancestors were Catholic. I ask him plainly, “and why aren’t you Catholic, what made you decide otherwise?”
I got a great answer out of him. A very truthful and sincere “I don’t need all the extra stuff.  Some of my friends are Catholics, and they are happy with that but none of it matters for my salvation. What matters is the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and I can add nothing to that.” A fine reply. We had some people over to our house and I did not want to start on a long drawn out conversation. I chose prudence; saying what needs to be said, only when it needs to be said, and otherwise letting people have their say. Sometimes I do really want to reply. Heck, I might even have a fantastic reply but my words don’t always need to be heard. Even if I never discuss this with this person again, there are times where people need to be listened to and not spoken at.  So I said nothing other than acknowledging his sentiment, and I do sincerely identify with his words, but not all of them.
The “extra stuff” in Catholicism might seem extra to one who is not of the faith, but to a Catholic they are vital. Likewise, take a step further; imagine this conversation taking place with a non-Christian. They might see Christmas, Easter, other holy days, going to retreats, participating in communion, and tithing as the stuff of religiosity, or otherwise “extra.” And seriously, do Christmas, Easter, and going on retreats do anything for our salvation? Do they add to the work of the cross? No, and no. But – Don’t they strengthen our faith? Don’t they have usefulness and obligation? All Christians participate in these but are they required for our ultimate salvation? No.
As a Protestant I was objecting to the same topics: if they are not required for salvation then why confess to a priest, believe in the Real Presence, and the other Catholic dogma. What I was thinking is that they were just dissimilar beliefs, like the way you and me believe or don’t believe that pepperoni is better than sausage on a pizza. What I started to consider though, is the consequences, not of the belief, but of the possible truth. I started to think, “what if that bread is really Jesus, what if it is true?” I would even tell myself, “if it is, then aren’t I consuming it no matter what, and therefore, I am not missing out or doing anything wrong.” I thought that was pretty slick, but then I read 1 Corinthians 11:29, “whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” I asked myself, if it is just a symbol, how again am I drinking judgment upon myself? Is there any other parallels instance where God judges us for metaphors and symbolism?
So again I implore the consequences. One might not believe in confessing to a priest, but if they really can and are supposed to forgive sins why am I not doing that? Leading on, if they are supposed to forgive sins then that means one is expected to confess, right? As a protestant I believed I was “ever forgiven;” that once Jesus forgave my sins he forgave them all future, present, past – an idea that is hardly biblical first of all. But even if I was right, the logic and scripture do not match up. James tells us to confess our sins to one another (5:16), 1 John 1:9 says “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Why confess if you are already forgiven? Protestant websites filled me with other hope that the confession was relinquishing God’s judgment on me (see “gotquestions” website) or other illogical arguments. The fact is: the bible says we need to confess. And just for the non-Catholic, the Church does not teach that a man forgives sins. We believe God, and only God will forgive sins. The Priest is participating in the High Priests authority (see Hebrews) as an ambassador, literally, as Paul tells in Ephesians 6:20, Philemon 1:9, and an ambassador carries the will of the King with him. For more on Jesus giving the power to forgive sins check out the Gospel of John 20:19-23.
Even Jesus, God Himself was Baptized for purposes John did not fully comprehend.
There remain many other examples to pull from. Do we need to pray to saints? Do we need to pray the Our Father? I would argue the only “extra” in the Christian faith is the practice of something harmful to ourselves and others. The Catholic faith is purported to be as old as Pentecost, circa 29AD. A priest said to me, “Satan has tried to destroy us, we have tried to destroy ourselves, but it cannot be done.”
If we are really the body of Jesus Christ, not just a metaphor, how can anything we teach be extra?

Monday, July 9, 2012

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.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

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).  

Thursday, January 5, 2012

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