If You Believe…

Leave a reply

If you believe that Jesus:

  • Came to Earth as The Word made flesh (i.e. God)
  • Created the world by speaking it into reality
  • Walked on water
  • Healed the blind, deaf, mute, lame, leprous
  • Controlled the weather
  • Changed water into wine
  • Fed thousands with a few loaves and a few fish
  • Was transfigured before His disciples very eyes
  • Raised the dead (including Himself)
  • Rose from the dead in a glorified, spiritual, physical body (1Cor 15:44-49, John 6:61-63)
  • Ascended into Heaven

If you believe all of that, then why not believe that Jesus actually changed bread into His body and wine into His blood? (Matt 26:26-28) He spoke it into reality. He’s God, after all.

“He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, even he shall live by me.” (John 6:56-57)

There should be no reason to disbelieve any of His words in John 6, unless you are regarding them “in the flesh.”

“The flesh” will profit you nothing. (John 6:63, Rom 8)

“His flesh” profits you everything. He gave it for the life of the world (John 6:51)

The words of Jesus are “spirit” and “life,” not “symbol” or “metaphor.” (John 6:63)  “Spirit” is very real and very life-giving.

Believe it.

The Mail Carrier Shouldn’t Edit The Mail

Leave a reply

There are certain disciplines, cultural practices and pastoral considerations of the Catholic Church that can and sometimes do change over time. The doctrines of the Church, however, cannot change. Truth does not become untruth.

The Apostles handed down (Tradition) that which was given to them by Christ. Some of it was written down, some of it was spoken and some of it was implicit (which is why an exhaustive list of the deposit of faith cannot be written down). The Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth as promised by Christ. This means that the understanding of some doctrine develops over time.

The Church has the authority to be God’s “mail carrier.” In other words, the Church is tasked with the responsibility of delivering to the world God’s truth as given by Christ. The Church is not authorized to “edit God’s mail.” The Church cannot change the doctrine contained within the deposit of faith. Doctrines delivered to the world cannot be reversed or declared “no longer true.” In this respect, the Catholic Church claims less authority than Protestant churches.

Prior to 1930, all churches taught that artificial birth control is immoral. Today, the Catholic Church stands alone in teaching this truth. Even when many individual Catholics fail to obey the doctrine, the Church does not reverse the truth of the doctrine. That which is immoral does not become moral simply because society changes its views. Truth is not determined by vote.

Jesus Christ taught that divorce is wrong because it defies the bond that God designed between man and woman “from the beginning.” Unlike Protestant churches, the Catholic Church does not claim to have the authority to change this doctrine of Christ and allow divorce. Additionally, the Catholic Church cannot change the fact that God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman. Some Protestant churches claim the authority to alter God’s design for marriage. Nevertheless, authentic development of doctrine cannot declare a previously held truth “untrue.”

Jesus Christ ordained men to carry out certain priestly duties within the Church. The Catholic Church does not have the authority to ordain priestesses. This is not the patriarchal oppression of women or the “invention” of a New Testament priesthood under Constantine. It is part of the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles.

The Catholic Church infallibly declared the canon of the Bible in the 300s. This reality stands to reason if one is to regard the Bible as infallible. As Dr. Peter Kreeft has said, “How can you squeeze infallible Bible ‘juice’ out of a fallible Catholic Church ‘orange’? The effect cannot be greater than its cause.” Protestantism removed some books from the canon of Scripture by its own authority in the 1500s. It declared “untrue” that which had already been declared true. If Martin Luther is a fallible man, how can anyone trust that his canon of Scripture is infallible? By reversing that which had already been declared true, Martin Luther, along with other reformers, claimed more infallible authority than even the Catholic Church.

Thoughts On Sola Scriptura (aka The Bible Alone)

3 Replies

Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) is a founding principle of the Protestant/Evangelical churches I was once involved in. On the positive side, I learned a lot of Bible from many wonderful, Christian people. Obviously, the Bible is a necessary part of the Christian life and we need to study it. However, I eventually learned that the Bible alone wasn’t intended to provide us with the fullness of the Christian faith. There was something missing. The following are just a few of the thoughts that resulted from my journey away from Evangelicalism/Protestantism and back to the fullness of the Faith in the Catholic Church.

If Sola Scriptura is true, it would seem that:

  • Jesus would have said to His disciples, “Write everything down and distribute those writings to every nation” instead of, “Go and teach all nations.” (Matt 28:19)
  • Paul would have said, “Faith comes by reading the Word of God” instead of, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” (Rom 10:17)
  • Paul would have told Timothy, “Scripture alone is sufficient for perfecting you as a man of God.” However, Paul’s message to Timothy was, “All scripture is profitable…” (2Tim 3:16-17)  As an analogy, water is profitable and necessary, but not sufficient for sustaining life. Food, shelter, clothing etc. are also profitable and necessary. Christians need the Church and her Sacraments as much as they need Scripture.
  • There would be a verse somewhere in the Bible that clearly indicates that the Bible alone is sufficient. Instead, there are verses extolling the necessity and profitability of Scripture, but not that the Bible alone is sufficient.
  • We wouldn’t need preachers or teachers or evangelists. We would only need to put the Bible on display and let people read it. There would be no need to explain anything in the Bible, as its contents would be self explanatory.
  • We wouldn’t need Martin Luther or anyone else to teach, argue or debate the sufficiency of the Bible alone. The sufficiency would be self evident from the Bible alone. We would need no other teaching authorities.
  • Jesus would have said to his disciples, “He who reads your writings reads me” instead of, “He who hears you hears me.” (Luke 10:16)
  • Paul would have said to the Thessalonians, “Stand fast and hold only to what I write down.” What he told them was, “Stand fast and hold to the traditions I taught you, either by letter or by word of mouth.” (2Thess 2:15)
  • The Apostles would have written something to the effect of, “We’re all going to die off eventually and we’ll have no successors. Therefore, our writings will be your guide.” But they did choose successors. (Acts 1:21-26)
  • We wouldn’t need a Church to tell us infallibly that the Book of Revelation belongs in the Bible while The Gospel of Thomas does not. The proper contents of the Bible would be self evident. The successors of the Apostles eventually decided (among other things) that the book of Revelation belongs in the Bible but the Gospel of Thomas does not. If the Catholic Church is fallible, then the Bible isn’t infallible. (The effect isn’t greater than its cause.)
  • Protestants wouldn’t need Luther or any other teaching authority to show them that the apocryphal books do not belong in the Bible. Such exclusion or inclusion of any books would be self evident. (If Luther is a fallible man, how can the canon of the Protestant Bible be trusted as infallible? Again, the effect isn’t greater than its cause).
  • Jesus would have told His disciples to resolve their disputes by appealing to Scripture. Instead, He told them to “take it to the Church” as their final authority. (Matt 18:17)
  • There would be a verse in the Bible stating that all Christian truth must be stated in the Bible. The Bible makes no such claim for itself. The Bible points us back to the authoritative Church.
  • The Ethiopian eunuch would not have needed Philip to interpret the scriptures for him. (Acts 8:27-30)
  • The Bible would be understandable by believers that read it. Instead, it is often difficult to understand. There are even verses warning the reader about the difficulties and dangers of biblical interpretation. (2Peter 3:16)  Different people reach different conclusions while claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.
  • Paul would have called the Bible rather than the Church “The pillar and ground of the truth.” (1Tim 3:15)
  • Jesus would have said, “The Bible is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by the Bible.” But, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” The Church is the very Body of Christ. We come to the Father by way of the Church (i.e. Christ Himself, the Living Word of God).

These thoughts are not the only reasons I returned to Catholicism, but they help illustrate the importance of a both/and approach to Bible and Church authority. My error was in thinking that I needed to choose either the Bible or the Church as an authority (an error I was ironically taught by Protestant teaching authorities, not by the Bible alone). In reality, the Bible and the Church are both part of the same authority given by Christ.  The Holy Spirit weaves them together to provide believers with “all things” Christ wants us to have.

Study, But Lean Not On Your Own Understanding

Leave a reply

I found the article Why Catholicism Is Preferable to Protestantism to be quite thought provoking. It addressed a question that I personally had wrestled with for some time in my spiritual journey. The question is one of authority. Since I am the one that ultimately decides which church to align myself with, does that not make me the ultimate authority? Aren’t Catholics and Protestants both doing the “same thing” in that regard? How can either of us claim to have different, ultimate authorities (i.e. Church vs. Bible) if the final authority is ultimately the individual?

The answer lies within the following statement from the article:

“How is the Catholic’s judgment different from a Protestant’s, if at all? The difference lies in the conclusion, or finishing point, of the inquiry they make. Whereas the Protestant can ultimately submit only to his own judgment, which he knows to be fallible, the Catholic can confidently render total assent to the proclamations of the visible Church that Christ established and guides, submitting his judgments to its judgments as to Christ’s.”

Another way to approach the issue is to ask, “What is being let go of?” When we let go of something, we relinquish control over it. We relax our grip. We hand over control to someone or something other than self. We submit. There, then, is the essence of the “finishing point” mentioned in the article.

Both Protestant and Catholic must use reason to come to a final conclusion. “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2Tim 2:15)  God expects us to use our brains. On the other hand, we can go too far with our use of reason and trust in it more than we trust in God. “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” (Prov 3:5)

There comes a point where one must “let go of” one’s own understanding in order to trust and obey God. That is the finishing point for the Catholic. It is not the total absence of reason, but the reasonable response to trust in God. One cannot “trust” without “letting go.” Hence, the Catholic sees that the way to trust and obey Christ is to trust and obey the Church given by Christ. The Catholic ultimately “let’s go of” the trust in personal understanding where doctrine is concerned.

A perfect example can be found in John chapter 6. None of Jesus’ followers understood why they must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ in order to have eternal life. However, some stayed with Jesus and others stopped following Him at that point. Those who stayed did so, not because they understood Jesus, but because they trusted Jesus. Peter said it best: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Peter did not scrutinize Christ’s words against scripture and render his own, personal conclusion. He submitted to Christ. Those that left remained constrained by their inability to make sense of Christ’s words. They tried to “figure it out” and, ultimately, clung to their personal authority.

The Protestant must continue to cling to personal understanding of Scripture in order to insure that the truth is being “rightly divided.” Personal interpretation of Scripture must rule the day in order to guard against heresies. If I, as a Protestant, disagree with the direction my church is headed, I can switch to a different denomination more closely aligned with my personal interpretation of Scripture. Even though I may “search the scriptures to see if these things are so,” I still make my decision based upon my personal interpretations of those scriptures. Ultimately, there is never a “letting go of” my own understanding where doctrine is concerned. Either the doctrine aligns with my personal interpretation, or, I find a new church.

The Catholic ultimately makes a decision to give up personal authority in favor of Christ’s authority. The Catholic submits to Christ by submitting to the teachings of Christ’s Church (even when those teachings are “hard sayings” not easily understood through diligent study). This is not blind faith void of reason. It is a reasonable trust in the authority of Jesus.

The Protestant must ultimately cling to personal, fallible authority in order to claim submission to the authority of the Bible (an authority the Bible does not claim for itself). Unlike the Catholic, there is not a “letting go of” personal authority for the Protestant. The personal authority must remain in order to empower any potential “protest.” This dynamic may serve democracy well, but the Church is not, and never has been, a democracy. For the Church, it results in continuous fragmentation as people do what is right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25).

Marriage and Governmental Identity Theft

Leave a reply

The union of two people creates a relationship that previously did not exist. But, what kind of relationship is it? A heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship are not the same thing.  Otherwise, we would not need to place “hetero” or “homo” before “sexual” in order to distinguish the two different types. Of all the types of human relationships that exist, the heterosexual relationship stands apart (irrespective of race) because it is a union of counterparts.

Even in cases where the relationship does not produce children, it retains its unique standing because it is a relationship between counterparts, not same parts (again, irrespective of race). A sterile woman does not become a man. A sterile man does not become a woman. Males and females are always counterparts that create a unique relationship. For example, an arranged, homosexual marriage would never make sense in any culture. This is not to validate the practice of arranged marriages, but to illustrate the fact that matching the counterparts is an intuitive aspect of marriage.

I believe it would be dishonest for a government to issue any license that strips the identity away from one entity and assigns it to other entities that are essentially different. For example, the government does not issue motorcycle licenses to cars or dog licenses to cats. Though the types of vehicles and animals have many similarities, they also have essential differences.

On a more human level, men and women deserve equal, civil rights. Yet, it would be dishonest for a government to say that all people will now be referred to as “men,” thereby robbing women of their unique identities. The push for inclusive language suggests that words such as “he,” “man,” “men,” or “his,” should not be used when referring to all human beings. Many inclusive language advocates insist that God should be called “Creator” rather than “Father.” Nevertheless, men and women still want to be called “men” and “women” respectively when it comes to their personal identities. Women generally want to be considered equal to men, but they generally don’t want to be men or be personally called “a man.” Likewise, few men want to be personally referred to as “she” or “a woman.” Men and women have many similarities, but they also have essential differences.

Inclusive language only goes so far because people instinctively understand and desire the natural differences between men and women. It seems to me that only a few extremists genuinely want to completely eradicate all differences and create a completely androgynous society. There is always a tension between “honoring our differences” and “liberty and justice for all.” We want to be “unique” and “the same” simultaneously. This produces a societal identity crisis. People in crisis can be reactionary and irrational and the government is no exception. The government is people, after all.

I submit that, when a government issues the exact same license to heterosexual and homosexual couples and calls it “marriage,” it is committing a type of identity theft. It removes any and all distinctions regarding the unique identity of each type of relationship. It hijacks the word “marriage” away from the distinct, heterosexual identity and assigns it to homosexual identity thereby declaring both unique identities to be identical. It is dishonest and unfair to both types of relationships. Such a law is oppressive to everyone, since it forces all of us to be accessories to a type of identity theft.

The government would be more consistent and honest if it issued “committed relationship licenses” and designated on the license each relationship type. Heterosexual unions could rightfully retain the descriptor and identity of “marriage” while other types of unions could have different descriptors.

Many people want to reference the struggle for interracial marriage when considering this issue. Race can be mixed and matched anyway we please. However, male and female can only be paired one way as natural counterparts. Therefore, the interracial, civil rights struggle, as noble as it is, is a false comparison (aka apples and oranges). “Liberty and justice for all” does not mean that all civil liberty issues are “the same.” Skin pigment is simply not an essential difference. Indeed, many argue scientifically that “race” is genetically non-existent, a myth. One cannot make the same claim regarding male and female distinctions.

Religious liberty issues certainly need to be considered regarding gay marriage. However, I believe that governmental identity theft is also an issue worth pondering. Laws need to be honest in order for love to truly win for everyone.

A Person

Leave a reply

Time and again I hear pro-abortion advocates make the claim that what we are dealing with is not a “baby” but a “fetus” with no consciousness, no sense of pain, no brain stem activity, etc. It is, after all, only a “mass of cells” that is being aborted, right? I feel compelled to address this rationalization.

A person that has been declared “brain dead” by doctors apparently has no consciousness. There is no sense of pain. There is no brain activity that will allow the person to sustain life or recover from the condition. Yet, we do not reduce that person to a lump of cells. If there is no recovery, the person is typically given a funeral and laid to rest as appropriate. Any lack of brain activity or sense of pain does not negate the “personhood” of the individual.

We can take the principle one step further and declare that cemeteries everywhere are full of dead persons. Although they once had brain activity, the fact that they have lost it has not negated their personhood. They even still have names etched into their grave markers and many of them are still visited by friends and relatives.

What we are dealing with at any phase of life is a “person,” no matter how inconvenient that may be. We are all persons “in process.” The person in the womb is no exception to this principle. We would not “pull the plug” on a brain dead person if we knew that in a few months there would be a recovery from the condition. How can it be generally acceptable to “pull the plug” on a person that is in an improving condition simply because the location of that person is another person’s womb?

While a person buried in a cemetery once had brain activity but lost it, the person in the womb is waiting for brain activity to develop. Whether a person is in a developing condition, a declining condition or even a corpse, it is still a person we are dealing with. It does not matter if one is losing a brain through Alzheimer’s disease or gaining a brain through gestation. It is still a “person” we are dealing with, not a mere “lump of cells.” This is the heart of the matter, because how we treat each other as persons is everything.

We Walk By Faith, Not By Feelings

1 Reply

I saw a church sign that said, “God seem far away? Who moved?”

Implication: it’s your fault if God seems distant.

Nonsense. What about Job? What about the Psalmist? What about Jesus who said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” What about folks going through a very real depression or “dark night of the soul?” What about Saints such as Therese of Lisieux or Mother Theresa, etc. who felt a distance from God despite their holy lives?

Sometimes God seems far away and there’s not a darn thing you can do about it. There’s more to being Christian than sitting on a mountaintop and dancing for joy all the time. There are valleys, too, and sometimes they are excruciatingly deep and wide.

We walk by faith, not by feelings.

Why Mass Is Boring (Or Is It?)

Leave a reply

When I was a boy, I would sometimes whine to my mother that I was bored. My kids do the same thing to me. I heard someone say once that “a bored person is a boring person.” So, I echo my mother’s advice and suggest to my kids in one way or another that they use their imagination.

We have become used to being spoon-fed and entertained. We are bombarded with all sorts of stimulus. We are media junkies. We have become so accustomed to musical and visual effects that our imaginations have atrophied. We can barely put down our phones to engage in conversation with the people next to us, much less God.

Disney World, for example, is lauded as a world of imagination. Actually, it’s a world of entertainment. We don’t need to use our own imaginations there. All of the imagining has been done for us. We pay to have it spoon-fed to us. It is the same with movies and television. Computer Graphic Imagery (CGI) rules the day. We sit and we watch. We are spectators addicted to entertainment. Little or no imagination on our part is required. Entertainment is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be a good, recreational thing. We just rely on it too much these days. It is killing us spiritually.

So, we find ourselves sitting in pews and wondering where all the action is. If the homily (sermon) doesn’t entertain us enough, we’re bored. If the music doesn’t move us enough, we’re bored. We become entertainment critics watching a lackluster “show” and our reviews are not good. We whine and cry that we’re bored and uninspired. Great preaching and inspiring music is nice to have, and God can certainly use those things to our edification. But the Mass is the same event even if it’s just a few people in a little room with no music and no great sermon.

The imagination we need to employ is not the kind that engages in fantasy. We’re not supposed to sit and daydream or “make stuff up.” Christianity is not about having an “imaginary friend” we call God (as many atheists claim). Rather, we are to use the part of our imagination that allows us to “see” with the eyes of faith that which is actually happening in the spiritual realm.

It’s somewhat like listening to a sporting event on the radio. The radio announcer calls the plays, but we must “see” the game in our minds’ eye. Watching the game on television or at the stadium requires less imagination. When listening to the game on the radio, we can still cheer along with the crowd because our imagination allows us to be “at the game.”

The Mass is not a “show” or a “game.” It is not a spectator event we are to sit and watch. We are not there to be entertained. The Mass is an event that we are to participate in. Active participation requires us to engage our God-given imagination.

Imagine being at The Last Supper. Through the miracle of the Eucharist we actually are at The Last Supper! The priest is “calling the plays” of what is actually taking place!” Our imagination is not supposed to help us “pretend” like we are there. It is supposed to help us “see” that we actually are there. In our minds’ eye we can see the saints and angels around us. We can see Christ telling us to “take and eat,” “take and drink.”

This is where the “radio announcer” analogy falls apart. We are not simply listening from a distance, wishing we were “at the game.” We are actually made present to what is happening!” We are not merely recalling past events. We are made present to the eternal sacrifice of Christ! We are not supposed to say, “Oh yeah, I remember hearing about The Last Supper, the crucifixion and the resurrection. I remember it. I’m going to make sure that I don’t forget that it happened.” No, we are supposed to see it happening in the present. God is eternal. No past. No future. When Moses asked what God’s name was, God told him, “I Am.” When we go to Mass, we are made present to the eternal sacrifice of Christ.

Was anyone yawning in the Upper Room when Jesus said “This is my body” and “This is my blood?” How many of Jesus’ followers were bored during the crucifixion or upon seeing Jesus resurrected?

Mass is boring? Really? Mass isn’t boring. We have become boring. C’mon! Let’s stop looking for entertainment. Let’s stop pining for “better preaching” or “better music.” Let’s use our imagination and actually participate in the eternal event!

South Birds Fly, But How? And Why?

Leave a reply

Animals have instincts. Some migrate. Some hibernate. All of them search for food. They nest and they breed without question. Humans have instincts, too. What separates us from the animals is our search for meaning. We question our instincts. Animals simply live and die by them.

I have never completely understood why some scientists display such animosity towards the idea of God. These same scientists show no distain towards animal instincts. Indeed, some scientists have devoted their lives to studying such animal phenomena. However, the human instinct to search for meaning in God draws fire from them.

Humans have always been, and still are, spiritually inclined. Certainly, science has debunked many superstitions. However, the scientific method has not replaced the instinctual desire to know God. Religion is not comparable to the impotent scales on the tail of a snake that used to be functional legs. Human spirituality is still operative and functioning. In fact, science has excelled partly because humans are spiritually inclined. Many of the greatest scientists throughout history have been priests and other religiously inclined people.

Science is but one aspect of the human search for meaning. There is more than one way of “knowing.” Birds don’t fly south for the winter due to their scientific conclusions about weather patterns and food sources. Birds simply “know” to migrate, and scientists accept and study this fact. Therefore, I see nothing scientifically incongruent with accepting that humans can simply “know” that God exists. In other words, it is built into our wiring.

I had one person tell me that, eventually, science will close all the gaps in our knowledge and demonstrate how invalid religious thinking really is. But, science is basically in the business of answering the mechanistic, “how?” questions. The human search for meaning includes existential, “why?” questions. Science may tell us how we arrived on planet Earth, but not why we are here. Consequently, science can never “close all of the gaps in our knowledge.” Humans instinctively desire to know answers to the “why?” questions.

The issue we face as humans is that our instinctual desire for meaning can derail our instinctual “knowledge” of God. Doubt is an intrinsic quality of this instinct. Animals do not have this problem. Animals follow their instincts without question. Yet, doubt is not a bad thing. One does not seek and find without doubt. I don’t blame anyone for doubting the existence of God or the intentions of religious people. However, when such doubt leads to the complete elimination of one’s spiritual instinct and/or the ridicule of those who follow their spiritual instinct, doubt has become a dehumanizing element.

People “know” there is a God the way animals “know” to migrate and hibernate. I see no reason to ridicule human instinct while praising animal instinct. Both are equally real and worthy of study. Science may someday be able to decipher the mechanisms behind such knowledge. However, science will never answer the question of why such knowledge exists within us. Ultimately, we instinctively want to know why. We are scientifically and existentially inquisitive beings.