Recently in The Church Category

This week - probably because of everything going on in the world - is a more serious collection of posts that I remember seeing recently. And it makes for compelling reading that really challenges you to think through your preconceptions and understand Catholic teaching. That's not to say there aren't a few lighter posts, but this Carnival is a little heavier than most! Enjoy:

Father Aloysius starts us off with Fundamental Truth at Life's Crosses. This post explores our reasons for being and why we reject the overtures from God so often.

Next we move to Mini Confessions at Quantum Theology where we hear the outcome of sending a 14-year-old to a face-to-face confession rather than a penance service.

Never forget that God Alone is Enough as explained on Thoughts on Grace. When you are filled with fear, remember St. Theresa's poem and know that God alone is enough.

Steven highly recommends him, so he reviewed J.F. Powers Bibliography at Book Reviews and More. Powers is an excellent Catholic short story writer that you should know more about. This is a good place to start!

Poetry speaks and convicts in Like Dinner on Wood at Long Skirts. It is a poem about how Catholics before us were willing to be served up Like Dinner on Wood to preserve the Faith.

Okay, I admit it at Homeschool Goodies takes us in a different direction: She admits being a "dance mom" and explains the benefits her homeschooled children receive from dance.

Keeping on that theme, Homeschooling: A Growing Trend at A Catholic Mom Climbing the Pillars explores the question of why people are homeschooling and paints a great picture of the homeschooling family.

Sarah makes grape jelly in The Color Purple at Just Another Day of Catholic Pondering. She also reflects on opportunities for prayer during her work. Wow - sounds delicious . . .

A Reflection . . . at Organ-ic Chemist ponders a homily on the reading from September 14 where the image of a snake is raised to save those who were bitten. What caught her attention was the pastor's reference to a snake being an ambivalent symbol.

Another reflection on the same readings: God's Punishment and Salvation at HMS Blog. As always, HMS Blog is definitely worth your time. It also focuses on the image of a snake prefiguring Christ.

Moving to politics, Over the Edge? at A Catholic View points out that Bishop Niederauer wants to speak with Nancy Pelosi about her recent misstatements on Catholic positions. Can we expect anything to come from this? Interesting comic included.

In a moving post, an Abortion Survivor Pleads with Obama in New Ad at Catholic Fire. Gianna Jessen survived when her mother's abortion was botched. She asks Senator Obama why he would vote against a bill requiring doctors to provide medical attention to babies born during botched abortions. It's a powerful ad.

Staying in politics, The Change We Need at Living Catholicism takes a closer look at Senator Obama's stance on abortion and how it matches up against Catholic teaching. Includes the USCCB's points from Faithful Citizenship.

Don't miss the Worldwide Rosary for Unborn Babies reported on at A Life of Benevolence. The event happens on October 18th and you can find the details in this post.

Serious issues continue with Suicide and Salvation at Aggie Catholics. Is it a sin to think about killing yourself? How about to try to kill yourself? This post explains Catholic teaching.

Notes from a Subculturist at The Catholic Journeyman explains what a subculturalist is and how they find balance, beauty, and battlescars in Catholic apologetics.

We finish up with Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard at Prepare for Mass offers a series of videos exploring the readings - it's a great way to get prepared for Mass!

God bless,
Jay

In case you aren't aware, Pope Benedict XVI is headed to the US this week. His visit starts in Washington, DC, then moves to New York City (where he'll speak to the UN). It provides non-Catholics a wonderful opportunity to hear the Pope's words and listen to him call us all to Jesus.

In advance, he has released a video statement to Americans (you can read the text version here). I hope Christians of all stripes and persuasions will take this opportunity to listen the Pope and hear him call you home (he is the successor to St. Peter, the first pope). Here's the AP's take:

I'm guessing abortion might come up as well, and it's a great time considering the upcoming election (the AP leaves that out of the list of "controversial" subjects). You'll also be able to follow his talks here; I believe they will post a text version of each speech he gives.

Also, pray for his visit - may our ears be opened to hear the truth!

God bless,
Jay

I was recently emailed this and thought it made a wonderful Easter post:

"The Cross had asked the questions; the Resurrection had answered them.
 
The Cross had asked the question: How far can Power go in the world? The Resurrection answered: Power ends in its own destruction, for those who slew the foe lost the day.
 
The Cross had asked: Why does God permit evil and sin to nail Justice to a tree? The Resurrection answered: That sin, having done its worst, might exhaust itself and thus be overcome by Love that is stronger than either sin or death.
 
Thus 'there emerges the Easter lesson that the power of evil and the chaos of any one moment can be defied and conquered, for the basis of our hope is not in any construct of human power, but in the Power of God Who has given to the evil of this earth its one mortal wound-- an open tomb, a gaping sepulchre, an empty grave.'
 
...Whence shall come our hope for the Church? It will not come from the world, for if the world loved the Church, the Church would be no salvation to the world. If it were not hated, it would be weak. It is only because the fires of its Truth are blinding evil eyes and convicting them of sin and judgment, that the world vainly tries to put them out. And though the world is tearing up all the photographs and blue-prints of a society and a family based on the moral law of God, be not disheartened. The Church has kept the negatives..."

It is from Archbishop Fulton Sheen (a message on 4/25/1943). If you don't know, Archbishop Sheen was a powerful preach of the Truth. He was, I believe, the first priest to have a television show, where he led people to Jesus' Church every week. His sermons still resonate today.

I hope you have a wonderful Easter! Christ is Risen, let us rejoice in Him!

God bless,
Jay

 

This is an excellent article by the man who owns Sophia Press:

Not long ago, one of my adult children spent hours pummeling me and the Church. The waves of her anger struck repeatedly, tossing me like a small boat in a storm.

With the bitterness of a woman betrayed, she recited the sins of bad priests we knew, and catalogued the failings of Catholic laymen and bishops we trusted.

"I believed," she cried.

"I believed, while those bastards lied and sneaked about, doing the very things they preached against!"

What could I say?

I won't defend the indefensible.

So, like Peter in that boat tossed by an earlier storm, I kept myself focused on Jesus.

"They betrayed us," I agreed. "But they betrayed Jesus more.

"He condemned these sins centuries ago.

If you thought He was wrong about that, you wouldn't be upset today. Your anger shows that even when priests violate them, you think Christ's teachings --- the Church's teachings --- are right."

That just made her angrier.

You know, when I entered the Church as an adult, I had a profound admiration for priests.

I believed so completely that I founded Sophia Institute Press to bring back into print the fine Catholic books that had won me to the Faith, and that --- I was sure --- would convert others, too.

Now, at last count, five of the priests I've admired for their orthodoxy have been implicated in the sex scandals, and one is deep in jail.

That fact didn't make it easy for me to answer my daughter's charges.

Like Peter, I was left only with Jesus.

Jesus gave sinful Peter the power to walk on water.

Jesus keeps us from drowning when the world attacks us and assails our wounded Church.

And Jesus guarantees that, despite the sins of Her members, the Church Herself is perfect.

Fr. Ronald Knox explains how in a remarkable little book, The Church on Earth, which we published a couple of years ago.

There he notes that, unlike the Protestant churches, the Catholic Church is not a system that men, after earnest prayer and thoughtful deliberation, devised as the best scheme that they could think of for perpetuating the work of their Master, Jesus.

The Catholic Church is directly God's handiwork: in the New Testament Jesus Himself instituted the Sacraments and established the Church, placing Peter at its head

Since God Himself established our Church, we must believe that it is perfectly designed to lead souls to perfection; and that it does so when they abide by Her teachings and partake of the graces She affords them.

Had I remembered just this one point from Msgr. Knox's slim book, the conversation with my daughter -- and with others who assail the Church for the sins of her members -- would have gone much better.

It's a beautiful story - and I recommend The Church on Earth as well. One important point: Sophia Press is in dire need of money. If you can spare a dollar, please donate here to help save them. Or purchase The Church on Earth here.

God bless,
Jay

I recently finished a research paper on something that has fascinated me for a long time: the countless number of Protestant churches in the United States. I’ve always wondered how all these different churches came about. I knew that Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, but how did that evolve to Bob’s Bible church down the street? All the Protestants I have talked to through the years have been surprisingly uninterested in this question, and look for any Christian, non-Catholic church when they seek to join a different faith-community. I finally have some answers.

Although Martin Luther began the Protestant Reformation in Germany, Protestantism has flourished in the US much more than in Europe. Why is this so? Well, America has provided the perfect conditions for Luther’s notion of sola scriptura to be taken to its extreme. The New World offered everybody from Europe a chance to start anew, a clean slate for any political, economic, or religious undertaking. For those seeking religious freedom, there was no entrenched religious institution to destroy before starting a new one. The remarkable ease with which one could splinter off a religious group and create a new one was too tempting for many Protestants in America.

The political structure and democracy of the United States has also helped to shape the extreme nature of Protestantism in America. For example, when the leaders of the Restoration Movement broke with the Presbyterians of Kentucky, they called the move their “Declaration of Independence”. These founders of what would later be known as The Disciples, Christian Churches, and Churches of Christ thought that July 4, 1776 was a day of equal importance to the Jewish Passover. The American passion for political liberty spilled over into passion for religious liberty, especially regarding personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Hierarchies were generally disdained. The reformation battle cry of “the Bible alone” became a Protestant battle cry with a more distinctly American appeal – “no creed but the Bible!”. Because of these factors, the number of Protestant churches in this country could ultimately be as many as the number of Christians. Ironically, not even Luther himself would have approved of this end result.

Sadly, I have found that the Protestant Christians in this process see this as a good thing; they see it as Christianity recreating and purifying itself. I don’t see how they reconcile the fact that Christ wanted us to be one in the Faith. . It also harms evangelization efforts to non-Christians in the United States - I can’t imagine how confusing this looks for an outsider looking in. Let us continue to pray for Christian unity, and engage in more Catholic-Protestant ecumenical efforts in this country.
Breaking from Rome is never the answer, no matter how bad things get, because we believe in Christ and He wanted it this way.

In Christ,
Daniel

The Council of Trent, as is every council, was much needed injection of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church in 1545. Unfortunately, people who misunderstand the teachings of Vatican II like to dismiss and use Vatican II to nullify this very important event in Church history.

To fully understand and appreciate the council, one must put himself in the context of the times. The corruption within the Catholic Church and the Protestant Revolution (the Reformation was more of a revolution than a reformation) severely hindered the flourishing of the Faith in Europe. At the beginning of the Council there was a debate as to whether the reform of the Church should take place first, in order to win over the Protestants, or whether the dogmatic decrees should take precedence. The bishops finally decided that the work of defining the Faith and reform should occur simultaneously.

During the Council, the bishops clarified the teachings that the Protestants were rejecting. Some of the most important doctrines defined were on the authority of Scripture and Tradition, the Sacraments, and Justification. If one looks at the canons on Justification, he will see that Trent elucidated the Church’s constant teaching that faith and works must not be separated. It never taught that works alone can earn one salvation. Canon I makes that explicitly clear. Earning salvation through works alone is just as theologically erroneous as earning it through faith alone. (Ironically, these extremes are very close; if a Protestant decides he has faith, he ‘earns’ salvation by deciding to get baptized).

Great fruit came forth from the Council, and it is generally known as the Catholic Reformation or Counter Reformation. A wonderful tool to counter the tracts and pamphlets that the Protestants were flooding the continent with, was the Roman Catechism. This catechism brought about a much-needed uniformity in teaching the Catholic faith. Great saints like St. Charles Borromeo, St. Philip Neri, and St. Peter Canisius were zealous for the Faith and formed by Scripture and the Roman Catechism. Even St. Vincent de Paul, known much for his work for the materially poor, was also a passionate reformer for the spiritually poor in the spirit of Trent.

I urge anyone who might have some misunderstandings of the Council of Trent to read about it, or actually read some of the document itself.

In Christ,
Daniel

I just read a fascinating interview in The Catholic World Report about the conversion of Francis Beckwith. Unfortunately the article isn’t online, but I do quote a bit of it below.

For those who aren’t aware, Francis Beckwith was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society when he began the rite of initiation into the Catholic Church. This is a man that knows protestant theology well, but felt he had to come home to the Catholic Church. And the rationale, although not surprising to Catholics, is fascinating. Here’s a bit:

. . . Then when I read the Fathers, those closest to the Apostles, the Reformation doctrine was just not there. To be sure, salvation by grace was there. To be sure, the necessity of faith was there. And to be sure, works righteousness apart from God’s grace was decried. But what was present was a profound understanding of how saving faith was not a singular event that took place “on a Wednesday,” to quote a famous Gospel song, but that it was the grace of God working through me as I acquiesced to God’s spirit to allow His grace to shape and mold my character so that I may be conformed to the image of Christ. I also found it in the Catechism.
And there was an aesthetic aspect to this as well: the Catholic view of justification elegantly tied together James and Paul and the teachings of Jesus that put a premium on a believer’s faithful practice of Christian charity. Catholicism does not teach “works righteousness.” It teaches faith in action as a manifestation of God’s grace in one’s life. That’s why Abraham’s faith results in righteousness only when he attempts to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God.
Then I read the Council of Trent, which some Protestant friends had suggested I do. What I found was shocking, I found a document that had been nearly universally misrepresented by many Protestants, including some friends. I do not believe, however, that this misrepresentation is the result of purposeful deception. But rather, it is the result of reading Trent with Protestant assumptions and without a charitable disposition. For example, Trent talks about the four causes of justification, which correspond somewhat to Aristotle’s four causes. None of these causes is the work of the individual Christian. For, according to Trent, God’s grace does all the work. However, Trent does condemn “faith alone,” but what it means is mere intellectual assent without allowing God’s grace to be manifested in one’s actions and communion with the Church. This is why Trent also condemns justification by works.
This is why I am convinced that the typical “Council of Trent” rant found on anti-Catholic sites is the Protestant equivalent of the secular urban legend that everyone prior to Columbus believed in a flat earth.
I returned again to the [early Church] Fathers and found in them, very early on, the Real Presence, infant baptism, and apostolic succession as well as other “Catholic” doctrines. Even in the cases where these doctrines were not articulated in their contemporary formulations, their primitive versions were surely there. But what is shocking to me is that one never finds in the Fathers claims that these doctrines are “unbiblical” or “apostate” or “not Christian,” as one finds in contemporary anti-Catholic fundamentalist literature . . .

I wish I could link to the full interview, since it is worth reading. There are several other excellent passages where Mr. Beckwith explains his thoughts and reasons for converting. His wife is also in the process of becoming Catholic.

Hope you enjoyed this – it’s fascinating to see the reasons behind a person’s conversion to Catholicism.

God bless,
Jay

Recently, a hot topic for the media has been a certain document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH. It's classic to me how the media feels it necessary to make it sound like Pope Benedict is personally making comments anytime the Magisterium issues a document. Yes, each issued document is "ratified and confirmed...and ordered (for) publication" by the pope, but I believe the media simply enjoys stirring up controversy when it come to reporting on the pope.

Many of the articles I've read attempt to make it sound like the Church is changing Her mind on the doctrine proclaimed in reference to the Church or that the issuing of this document was ill-intended. However, as is always the case, this document was issued to provide clarification as to what the Church, specifically at the 2nd Vatican Council, has taught about the Church in relation to other Christian churches and communities.

In reference to what the document had to say about the Catholic Church's understanding of God's presence within other Christian churches and communities, it stated the following:

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].

It also goes on to explain the Catholic Church's explanation as to why it does not refer to those Christian communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteen century as churches:

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].

Again, nothing new here. Pope Benedict XVI and the rest of the Magisterium are simply reasserting what the Church has always taught and believed. I highly recommend reading the entire document, I provided a hyperlink to it above.

In Christ,
Joe

In my earlier post What is the Purpose of the Vatican I brought up the difference between infallibility and inspiration. I’m just getting around to posting more about it after a comment on the article. These two concepts are different and I’ll start with the more basic concept of infallibility.

Never being wrong
If something is deemed infallible, it simply means that it is not incorrect in terms of doctrine. As Catholics we believe documents can be infallible even though they are not Scripture. For example, the Pope has the ability under certain circumstances to write infallibly or without error (see this post for more). Why should anyone be infallible? I think the Encylopedia of Catholic Doctrine answers that well:

How can we hear and follow Jesus? Has he not provided some means by which his teaching would be preserved in its authenticity throughout the ages?
He has: by endowing his Church with the charism of infallibility. “In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility” (CCC 889).

In other words, the point of giving the Church infallibility in certain areas was to prevent her from falling into error. The Catholic Church cannot fall into error because of Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:18 that nothing would prevail against her.

Written by God
Inspiration is completely different, although it is infallible as well. Inspiration takes infallibility to the next level, since it not only is “not wrong” it also is “completely true.” So inspiration is God using human men to write His words. We believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, not of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, although their writing styles affected the work, God lead their hand like a flutist blowing through a flute (the human instrument). Back to the Enclyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine:

The foundation for this doctrine rests on the propositions that Sacred Scripture is ultimately authored by God and that it contains divinely revealed realities inaccessible without divine help. The key New Testament texts are 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:19-21 and 3:15-16, and John 20:31. . . This divine authority meant that the inspired texts had an authority that far surpassed even the most sublime and profound teachings of even the holiest and most illuminated mystics and theologians.

So inspiration does more than infallibility, because it teaches truths that man alone could not understand or conceive of. The Bible is inspired by God like no other written document and can alone claim this trait. It is unique and cannot be repeated in the future.

Infallibility is nice, but inspiration is better
Without Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and the Scriptures written about Him, we could not understand God in the way we currently do. Even with infallibility, we needed inspiration from the Biblical writers in order to more fully understand the reality of God and His Church. Infallible documents do not create new revelations, rather they help us more fully understand what has already been revealed by God. Inspired documents – Scripture – does have revelations that were never conceived of prior to their writing. This is the difference between inspiration and infallibility.

The reason we still have the charism of infallibility is because the Holy Spirit continually works on earth to protect His Church from error, so that we all might be lead to heaven.

God bless,
Jay

I’ve been asked this before by non-Catholics who don’t completely understand the point of a worldwide central authority for the Church. The question confuses the Vatican and the Holy See a bit, but I’ll explain the difference and the rationale first:

Holy See or Vatican: What is what?
The Vatican is officially the residence of the Pope. In actuality, the Vatican is just a series of buildings that include the Pope’s residence. Often, however, people use the term Vatican to refer to the Holy See. A see is simply the area of the local bishop’s diocese. However only one see is the Holy See and that is the one in Rome, which is the diocese passed down by the Apostle Peter, the first Pope. The Pope is the “first among equals” – remember Peter was ordered by Jesus to “feed [His] sheep.” So the Holy See is actually the head of the Catholic Church, but what is the role of the Pope and the College of Cardinals?

Some basics: why does the Holy See exists?
It’s important to understand why we actually have the Holy See. We’ve written on this before, so I will just cite our earlier articles and you can read more there. First, the Holy See has to be in Rome, Italy because of Biblical prophecy. I explain this in Why are we Roman Catholics instead of just Catholics?

Second, the Church must exist. This seems odd to non-Catholics, but it is simply true. Jesus founded a Church while he was on earth and promised that it would not fail (See The Visible Church and the Bible). If there were no Church it would either mean Jesus was wrong or unable to sustain His Church. Either is not acceptable to Christians.

So what is the purpose of the Holy See?
The Holy See is the authority within the Catholic Church. As The Encyclopedia of Catholic History puts it:

As the successor of St. Peter, the pope is the sovereign pontiff, visible head of the Church, and holder of supreme, absolute jurisdiction over the entire Church, governing with the full authority of St. Peter.

The Holy See is not the Pope alone, however. He is assisted by the Roman Curia, which includes aides and congregations, often run by Cardinals of the Church. The Cardinals are the successors of the Apostles. The Pope with the bishops of the world constitutes the leadership of the Church and they are entrusted with leading the people to God. As Marcellino D’Ambrosio points out in Exploring the Catholic Church:

It’s important to note that the Church doesn’t put these men (bishops) over the Bible and Tradition. As the Second Vatican Council noted, these leaders are under the authority of God’s word and are subject to it, like every other follower of Christ (see Dei Verbum, par. 10). Their job is to serve the word of God by teaching and interpreting it so that we can take it as the guide of our lives without falling into all sorts of distortions.

Even an infallible book needs an infallible interpreter, right? The Pope and the Bishops are charged with insuring that the word of God is not distorted and that it is heard throughout the world. In our day we see those who support abortion, homosexuality, and all other forms of immorality using Scripture to justify their position. The Church must make sure that these people can’t distort the Truth – and call them back to holiness when they do. And the Church carries the Truth out to the World, even to countries like China where it is illegal to be Catholic.

The Pope is the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church and appoints many of the leadership positions within the Church. He also the visible head of the Church on earth – Jesus Christ is the actual head of Church. The Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine puts it this way:

Christ, present in His Church, continues to proclaim the message of redemption and to offer the means of salvation to generation after generation: “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt. 28:20). He sent his Apostles and their successors to teach, guide, and sanctify in his name, promising that he would be behind their teaching (“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Lk. 10:16) and guaranteeing those who obeyed their authority that it had a divine seal of approval placed upon it: “Whatever you [plural] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you [plural] loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt. 18:18).

The Pope is the leader of the Church and given special authority. Lumen Gentium explains that he has “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (22). So the Pope is the earthly leader of the Church and does make decisions in that role.

But isn’t the Pope Infallible?
This might come as a shock to you, but the Pope is not infallible. The Pope is simply a man who is given the position to lead the Church. Having said that, the Pope can issue infallible decrees, but only in certain circumstances. This also doesn’t mean the Pope is infallible; it means that we believe the Holy Spirit will protect His Church from error, so He [the Holy Spirit] will insure that the Pope is absolutely correct in these circumstances. What are the circumstances?

The Pope is infallible when “he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” (Lumen Gentium, 25). There are three conditions:

• the Pope must intend to speak infallibly or ex cathedra (sometimes referred to as “from the Chair of Peter”)
  
• the Pope must be speaking on faith or morals
  
• the Pope must be speaking to the universal Church and not privately
  

Typically the Pope does this through encyclical letters, but the Pope uses this to clarify doctrine in cases of question. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity was decided by an infallible declaration from the councils of Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople I (381 A.D.) after questions had arisen concerning the relationship of Jesus to God.

So the Pope cannot speak infallibly on science, history, or anything other than faith or morals. And the Pope must intend to speak infallibly before doing so. When this occurs we believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Pope from error and history has proven this true. In the past Popes have suddenly died while walking to the podium to infallibly declare an erroneous doctrine.

The Holy Spirit protects the Church today just as He did when Scripture was written. However it’s important to note that Scripture isn’t just infallible, it is also inspired, which means “God-breathed.” The Pope speaking infallibly is not inspired in this same way – Scripture was written by God through human instruments, whereas the Pope’s writings are the writings of a man protected from error by the Holy Spirit. There is an important difference between the two.

Conclusion: the Vatican and the Catholic Church
So to bring this back around, the Vatican is the home of the Pope and the Church. The role of Church leadership is to lead the faithful to God and protect the word of God (both written and oral) from error. The Pope can (and does) speak infallibly in order to clarify truth, rather than invent it. As Catholics we believe there is absolute truth (see 1 Tim 3:15) and the Church is the protector of it.

Without the Vatican, the Catholic Church would be broken and divided like so many of the protestant congregations we see. With it, we are the body of Christ calling all to unity in the Church that Jesus Christ founded.

God bless,
Jay

There's a great new video on YouTube: Why I Am Catholic. It's just a couple of minutes and uses images, quotes, and music to explain why Catholics are proud to be Catholics. Worth a minute - especially if you wonder why we are Catholic. See it here.

God bless,
Jay

I grew up in protestant churches – mainly Baptist – and when I converted one of the interesting differences was in worship and the attitudes taken by the different congregations. In my protestant background pastors often taught that church was something unnecessary. In fact, it wasn’t unusual to switch churches because of something as small as a personality conflict with the pastor or better music at another location. This is alien to Catholicism, which actually moves priests regularly so that the congregation doesn’t get too attached to the man, but to the service.

Of course, the real question is: is this okay? Or is it a sin to miss church on Sunday?

Purpose of Sunday Church
So what is the purpose of church on Sunday? In my Baptist background it was considered an option, since the church isn’t necessary for salvation. In Catholicism, it’s a sin to miss, because Sunday Mass is where we meet Jesus Christ in the flesh. The Catechism speaks of Mass as an “encounter” with Christ whom we meet in body, blood, spirit, and divinity. In other words, Catholics must prepare for Mass in order to meet their Savior properly.

The protestant position turns church into more of a social opportunity: a place to meet fellow Christians, rather than a place of worshiping God in a unique way. As Catholics, we see Mass as a function of worship – a deeper form of worship that cannot be done outside of Mass. The priest acts in the place of Christ and offers us His flesh and blood for sustenance. We offer this back to God in reparation for our sins.

But is this the purpose of Church? Why do we go? Let’s look at some background:

Why did the early Christians attend Church?
This is an extremely relevant question, since they were under fear of death. If church, as so many protestants believe, is not a requirement or even necessity for salvation then why risk death in order to attend? The early Christians were martyred frequently for simple acts like being caught at Mass.

We do know that the early Christians celebrated the Eucharist, which is the central action of the Mass (and the highest worship in the Mass). In fact, this is the main reason they were willing to die in order to attend (see the second half of John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-30). Clearly by risking death, they underlined the importance of attending Mass on Sundays. Their deaths show the importance they put on it.

Even more: the Divine Liturgy
But Sunday church is also a participation in the Heavenly liturgy. In fact, during Mass is when heaven and earth essentially come together. The book of Revelation in the Bible is a Mass – Scott Hahn points out that “the key to understanding the Mass is the biblical Book of Revelation – and, further, that the Mass is the only way a Christian can truly make sense of the Book of Revelation” (The Lamb’s Supper an excellent book on the Mass and the Book of Revelation). The real name of the mass is the Divine Liturgy because we are participating in the liturgy of the angels when we participate in Mass. This is a key point of Revelation: we are together in heaven with all the Saints and Angels when we go to Mass. As the Catechism points out:

CCC 1090: “In the earthly liturgy we share in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle. With all the warriors of the heavenly army we sing a hymn of glory to the Lord; venerating the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we eagerly await the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, until he, our life, shall appear and we too will appear with him in glory.”

So we’ve defined Sunday church as where we (1) receive Jesus in the Eucharist; and (2) participate in the Divine Liturgy with all the Saints and Angels. So, is it important that we show up?

Choosing to Follow God
Ultimately, whether we go on Sunday depends on how much we love God. It’s really that simple. There are always a hundred excuses why we should skip church – particularly when the temperatures drop during the winter. But do we love God enough to go?

This question also turns us back to our original statement: Is it a sin to miss?. The answer is pretty simple: if you go to a social hour on Sunday that leaves out the Eucharist (where we receive Jesus body, blood, soul, and divinity) and doesn’t participate in the Divine Liturgy then it is not a sin to miss. If you are Catholic and have the option of worshipping Christ as He intended, then it is a sin to miss. And an obvious sin, since you are choosing sleep or play over worshipping God and receiving the grace necessary to worship Him better.

If you aren’t Catholic, take a moment and look into it. God is calling you home to His Church, where you can worship in spirit and in truth.

God bless,
Jay

From the great Archbishop Fulton Sheen:

[People] have heard preachers without end preaching, "Go to Christ!" But what does that mean? Go back two thousand years? If so, then have they not a right to doubt the divinity of Him who could not project Himself through time?
Look up to Heaven? If so, then what has become of His blessing, His forgiveness of sinners, His Truth that He said would endure unto the end of time? Where is His authority? His power? His life now? If it is not someplace on earth, then why did He come to earth? To leave only the echo of His words, the record of His deeds, and then to slip away leaving us only a history and its teachers?
Somewhere on earth today is His truth: "He that heareth you, heareth me." Somewhere on earth is His power: "Behold, I have given you power . . ." Somewhere on earth is His life: "The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." Where to find it?
There is an institution on the face of the earth that claims to posess all these things, and to those who have knocked at its portals and have asked for a drink has come the elixir of divine life and, with it, the peace that comes to those who drink and never thirst again, and eat and never hunger again.
To each and every one of us, inside and outside the Church, our Lord asks, "Will you accept the cup of my love?"

Thanks be to God that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and promised that it will never perish or err. And thanks even more that He has given us His flesh in the Eucharist. You are, after all, what you eat.

For more read Victory over Vice, which is an excellent book by Archbishop Fulton Sheen (it's even on sale at the time of this post).

God bless,
Jay

I recently was asked this in an email exchange and thought I would elaborate on my answer in a post. Generally speaking, we can confess our sins directly to God. However in doing so we miss out on some of the benefits that sacramental confession brings.

When Was Confession Invented, Anyway?
The Catholic understanding of going to a priest for Confession was actually “invented” by Jesus Christ Himself while on earth. Near the end of His ministry, Jesus took the apostles aside:

John 20:19-23. On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

With the protestant mindset, this is nonsensical. Without a sacramental confession, Jesus basically gave them nothing. Or He gave all of us the ability not only to forgive the sins of others, but to retain them as well. Either way it doesn’t make sense why Jesus performs this act at such an important moment in Scripture and in His ministry.

But the Catholic understanding fits perfectly. Jesus called His priests aside and gave them power to forgive or retain sins in sacramental confession. It would not be possible for the priests to decide whether to forgive or retain sins without hearing what those sins were. In practical terms, Jesus’ words require the Catholic confession in order to make sense. Which means as Catholics we go to confession as Jesus chose for us to. The apostles began forgiving sins – see 1 Corinthians 5:3, where St. Paul explains that he has already “judged” another’s sin. In 2 Corinthians 2:10 he further explains that he forgives the sins of those that the Corinthians forgive.

Moving forward in the Church there are numerous instances of Christians explaining or defending confession over the years. So confession was Jesus’ preferred way of asking forgiveness, so why would you do it another way?

What are the Benefits of Confession?
The biggest benefit of Confession comes from the Biblical text itself: when we go to confession we can know with certainty that we are forgiven. Jesus gave his priests the power to forgive sins, so they can forgive our sins. Of course, Jesus is actually the one forgiving our sins, however the priest acts in persona Christi and uses the power Jesus gave them to forgive our sins. As a protestant you can hope that you are forgiven for your sins, but never fully know.

In addition Catholics can receive and perform penance, which removes the temporal punishment for sin. In particular this is important for mortal sins, which require satisfaction to be forgiven. The understanding of penance requires a deeper analysis of the issue than I will take up here, but in a future article I will address it. Catholics also receive additional graces to help them avoid future sin through the sacrament that cannot be obtained outside of it.

Finally there are other non-obvious benefits to confession. For example our humility is improved by requiring us to go to a priest and openly confess our sins (I know personally this has helped me to avoid sin!). Also we receive sound spiritual advice from the priest on avoiding temptations and improving our lives – the benefit of a psychologist with the power to forgive. This seems like a side benefit, but it is very important. As fallible humans we can convince ourselves of all kinds of things. For example, you can justify your sins by developing excuses. Priests, through the power God gave them, can help us to see through our pride and denial to the root of the problem. They can help you to understand the reason why you are sinning and give you practical advice for avoiding it. This is no mere trifle, it is a huge benefit that helps you on your road to heaven.

Confession is for all of us
From my point of view the biggest issues are (a) Jesus wanted us to do it this way; (b) we know we are forgiven; and (c) we receive additional grace to help us avoid sin in the future. If Jesus instructs us to do something a certain way, how can we be too arrogant to follow? If Christ told us to do something a certain way, we can rightly assume that He had a good reason for it.

God bless,
Jay

To many in the world today the idea of the Catholic priesthood is foreign. Many mistakenly believe that the priesthood is some elite society within the Catholic Church that rules the Church in a tyrannical way or for personal gain. Yet this is farther from the truth than most realize. Sure, we all have witnessed scandalous behavior by priests. Certainly there are some who use their priesthood to obtain comfort and a life of prestige. Absolutely there are priests who preach and teach things contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yet these are the exception not the rule. It is important for us to remember that priests are men and being men are just as susceptible to sin as we are; even Jesus Christ had Judas. Yet the true priest is another Christ to the world. He lays down his life out of love for God and for his fellow brothers and sisters. In this article I would like to contemplate the priesthood in both the Old and New Covenants. What purpose does it serve? Why even have "priesthood" to begin with?

The priesthood from the beginning has been shrouded in mystery. In Genesis 14:18-19 we read:

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”

Prior to this passage we find no reference to Melchizedek or to a priesthood of God Most High. Yet clearly it was preexistent to Abraham and, in a certain sense, greater than Abraham for Melchizedek blesses him and in return is given a tenth of everything Abraham owns. The Navarre Bible commentary has this to say about Melchizedek and his priesthood:

Melchizedek is regarded as having a priesthood earlier and greater than that of Aaron; cf. when the King Messiah is praised: “You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4). In the New Testament, the mysterious priestly figure of Melchizedek is portrayed as a type of the priesthood of Christ, for Christ is truly the eternal priest even though he (like Melchizedek) does not belong to the priesthood of Aaron. “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever” (Heb 7:1-3).

In the light of all this, Christian liturgy has seen a prefiguring of the Eucharist in the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek (cf. Roman Missal, Eucharistic Prayer I); tradition sees him as a figure of priests of the New Law.
- The Navarre Bible: Pentateuch, Texts and Commentaries, p. 94.

Yet while the priesthood of Melchizedek was earlier and greater than that of Aaron, Aaron’s priesthood was necessitated by God and, like the priesthood of Melchizedek, a prefiguring of the priesthood of the New Covenant (cf. CCC, 1541). This understanding of the priesthood of the Old Covenant is brilliantly laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1539 The chosen people was constituted by God as "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."6 But within the people of Israel, God chose one of the twelve tribes, that of Levi, and set it apart for liturgical service; God himself is its inheritance.7 A special rite consecrated the beginnings of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. The priests are "appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins."8

1540 Instituted to proclaim the Word of God and to restore communion with God by sacrifices and prayer,9 this priesthood nevertheless remains powerless to bring about salvation, needing to repeat its sacrifices ceaselessly and being unable to achieve a definitive sanctification, which only the sacrifice of Christ would accomplish.10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Heb 5:1; cf. Ex 29:1-30; Lev 8.
9 Cf. Mal 2:7-9.
10 Cf. Heb 5:3; 7:27; 101-4.

"If I speak in human and angelic tongues, but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing..."

- 1 Cor 13:1-2

I find this quote from scripture to be a good theme for this article. Sometimes in my experiences with dealing with our separated brethren, the religious dialogue turns into gongs and cymbals clashing to win an argument. However, it should not be so. Jesus prayed that we believers might be one, and this can only be founded on love. This article will examine the essentials that must be kept in ecumenism and apologetics in light of the Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio.

First of all, I really like how Unitatis Redintegratio explicitly states the activities that must be engaged in the “ecumenical movement” in order to promote Christian unity. In sum, they are to avoid erroneous judgments of our separated brethren, to have "dialogue" between experts from different Churches to clarify the teachings of their communion, to cooperate in the duties for the common good, to come together for common prayer, and to examine our own faithfulness to Christ, renewing wherever necessary. These concrete actions should be always on the minds of all Catholics who engage in any form of ecumenical activity. They should also produce the fruits of "justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as a spirit of brotherly love and unity" (UR 4). Amen! I have a hard time seeing how they would not! While all the activities listed are important, the document declares one of these activities to be "primary". The Council Fathers thought that the principal activity is to "make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be renewed and done in the Catholic household itself", so that we may give others a greater witness to the fullness of truth which lies in the Catholic Church (UR, 4). This awareness is fundamental and indispensable for Catholics involved in these activities. If we do not keep this as our primary concern, then spreading the Catholic faith will become an issue of pride and we will fail to live by the truth we have. We will also forget that our separated brethren can contribute to our edification. Those of us involved in apologetics should be especially attentive to this.

No ecumenism is possible without interior conversion. I believe this point cannot be stressed enough. Before we try to spread the Gospel of love, it must be deeply rooted in us. People can see insincerity quite easily. Therefore, whenever Catholics engage in apologetics, they must keep their own renewal as part of the apologetic mission. I believe apologetics to be good and necessary, but it can also be quite dangerous. If a Catholic intent on defending his or her faith does not constantly seek greater union with God, then he or she will not receive the graces to be “self-denying, humble, and gentle in the service of others” (UR, 7). Nor will he or she have an “attitude of brotherly generosity” toward his or her opponents (Ibid.). When this aspect lacks, apologetics becomes an intellectual dispute, a fight where the one with the best argument “wins”. I know first hand because I have fallen into this trap several times. The fruits of these types of encounters are not to be desired. Nobody will be converted to the fullness of the truth if in defending my faith I do not have my renewal and the good of the other as my primary goal, no matter how logical and reasonable my argument may be.

It's Sunday morning....you wake up, get dressed, and head to church. For those of you that are Catholic, you walk through the front (or side) door, dip your fingers in the holy water, make the sign of the Cross, and then head to your usual pew. Hold up...rewind...you dip your fingers in holy water?! What is that about?! I guess it is just another one of those crazy, superstitous, ritualistic Catholic traditions... Man, what are we going to do about those poor Catholics :-)

Okay, wait a minute we Catholics know why we use holy water, right? Unfortunately, many of us don't.

So here's a crash course on the use of holy water (references to more in-depth explanations will come at the end).

What Is Holy Water?

Holy Water is water that has been blessed by a priest. It is a sacramental , i.e. a "sacred sign which bears a certain resemblance to the sacraments, and by means of which spiritual effects are signified and obtained through the prayers of the Church" (CCC, 1667).

Why Is Holy Water Used?

1. It is a reminder of our Baptism. In making the sign of the Cross when using Holy Water we are reminding ourselves of our commitment to the Christian way of life, the way of Cross.

2. It is a symbol of interior cleansing. In baptism, Holy Water is poured over the individual as a sign of the actual effect of the Sacrament, the cleansing of the soul of all sin. Using Holy Water on a regular basis is a symbol of that cleansing and our desire to be continuously cleansed through Christ's life-giving Grace that we receive through the Sacraments.

3. It prepares us and properly disposes us to receive grace. Using Holy Water, especially as we enter the church on our way to Mass, should create in us that proper focus and disposition that is necessary when participating in the Mass. We remind ourselves of our baptism, of our need for continual cleansing, and then we participate in that "perfect" act of worship where we receive the very "source" of all grace, namely Christ Himself.

4. It wards off evil. Holy Water, being blessed by the priest, can be used to exorcise the presence of evil. "When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism (CCC 1673). In the blessing of Holy Water, the priest publicly and authoritatively prays for these things. Now, this DOES NOT mean that Catholics should whip up their bottles of Holy Water and run around the world trying to perform "major" excorisms. "Major" exorcisms can only be performed by a priest with the permission of the bishop (cf. CCC 1673). However, it does mean that the blessing invoked over the water by the priest is applicable to the individual who uses this sacramental.

What does Holy Water not do?

Holy Water does not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacrament of Baptism does, rather, by the Church's prayer, it prepares us to receive grace and disposes us to cooperate with it (cf. CCC 1670).

References

Holy Water - provides a good history of the use of holy water.

Holy Water - provide a detailed overview.

In Christ,
Joe

Pope Benedict XVI just released his first Encyclical letter called Deus Caritas Est or God is Love. The Encyclical is available online to read here.

Protestants (or all non-Catholics) probably are wondering what exactly an Encyclical is. An encyclical letter is essentially a teaching document of the Church. As the Encyclopedia of Catholic History notes:

Encyclicals bear full authority regardless of whether they are letters or epistles. While an encyclical is not considered an infallible pronouncement by the supreme pontiff, it should always be noted that it does belong to the ordinary teaching authority of the Church, the magisterium, and therefore merits the respect and interior assent of all Catholics.

In other words, an Encyclical is a teaching document that should be accepted by all Catholics. Many encyclicals lay out infallible teaching of the Church.

This specific Encyclical letter deals with God and Love (as obvious by it's title). It isn't overly long and is very readable, so I recommend everyone take a few minutes and read through it. From God through Marriage to charity, the encyclical covers a range of topics and does a great job of identifying the types of love and rejecting some things that are called love. From Deus Caritas Est:

Faith, hope and charity go together. Hope is practised through the virtue of patience, which continues to do good even in the face of apparent failure, and through the virtue of humility, which accepts God's mystery and trusts him even at times of darkness. Faith tells us that God has given his Son for our sakes and gives us the victorious certainty that it is really true: God is love! It thus transforms our impatience and our doubts into the sure hope that God holds the world in his hands and that, as the dramatic imagery of the end of the Book of Revelation points out, in spite of all darkness he ultimately triumphs in glory. Faith, which sees the love of God revealed in the pierced heart of Jesus on the Cross, gives rise to love. Love is the light—and in the end, the only light—that can always illuminate a world grown dim and give us the courage needed to keep living and working. Love is possible, and we are able to practise it because we are created in the image of God. To experience love and in this way to cause the light of God to enter into the world—this is the invitation I would like to extend with the present Encyclical.

God bless,
Jay

More and more we’re seeing protestant churches ordain women as pastors of their church. A local church near me has a husband and wife as “co-pastors” of the church. And yet the Catholic Church has infallibly decided that women cannot become priests. Who is correct?

The Bible and Women Pastors
Believe it or not, Scripture is unequivocally clear on this subject. All protestant churches adhere in some variation to the principle of Sola Scriptura, which states that the Bible alone is the authority on every subject. This, after all, is one of the foundations of the Reformation. One example:

1 Tim 2:12-15. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve

He is specifically speaking in the context of the church in this passage – this doesn’t pertain outside of the church context (before everyone is angry). In addition, there are many places in Scripture that list requirements of pastors, priests or deacons and specifically use the term “men” or “husbands of one wife”, etc.

Under the umbrella of Sola Scriptura, all verses of Scripture are considered true and given to us by God. In other words, you can’t use another verse in order to ignore this one. Many cite Galatians 3:28 as approval of women pastors, but there are several problems with this. First, if you believe this to be true, then you do not believe some Scripture (particularly the verse above) to be infallible. Second, this is a complete misunderstanding of the verse, which is trying to say that all men and women are under the law and under the power of sin (all must be saved, in a collective sense).

It is not possible to ignore the specific verses pertaining to a matter in order to get what you want. Churches which ordain women pastors are essentially ignoring key parts of Scripture in order to be politically correct – they are not Bible-based once this is done.

Moreso with the Catholic Priest
It is also important to point out the differences between a protestant pastor and a priest. A protestant pastor is a manager in large part as well as a preacher and a counselor. His primary role, however, is preaching on a weekly basis to the churchgoers and running the church. A Catholic priest does do all of these, however his primary role is an administrator of the Sacraments. Mass is still valid without a sermon or homily, whereas it would seem pointless in some protestant churches – particularly those like the Baptist church that have no sacramental practices. The priest’s role is to stand in persona Christi, in the place of Christ, by celebrating the Eucharist, administering confession, and so forth. A protestant pastor does not make this claim and does not have the ability (given through the Catholic Church) to administer Sacraments that require the claim.

So, it is moreso in a Catholic Church that a priest cannot be a woman. Because Christ chose to become man, He has created a specific image of Himself that our priests imitate when handing out the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. God gave women all kinds of special gifts, the most obvious of which is the ability to carry children and give birth. However, when a person stands in the place of Christ, administering the Sacraments Christ gave to us, he should be a true to form representative. The Catholic Church has infallibly stated that priests must be men, although many media outlets and liberals ignore this declaration and continue to suggest that women can be priests.

Conclusion
In the end the answer is simple: women cannot become pastors or priests. As stated, women have several roles and abilities that men cannot fulfill. Women can give birth to children. Women, as Pope John Paul II notably taught, are first in the order of love. But women cannot become pastors or priests.

If your church has a female pastor, you must question whether it adheres to Scripture at all.

God bless,
Jay

Joachim has once again graced our lowly site and posted an excellent refute to comments made by a fellow blogger. After reading Joachim's comment I felt it worthy of being a post in and of itself. If you wish to review the entire dialogue you can find it at:

10 Questions for "Bible Christians"

Kaffinator,

I have come to give Matthew some assistance in the debate on the correlation of Sacred Scripture with Church Tradition.

From reading your posts, it is clear that you, the “Kaffinator,” believe in “Scripture Alone” as the means to attain salvation, and, therefore, consequently you believe that Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Church are “not necessary.” However, your arguments for “Scripture Alone” are insufficient in so much as you misinterpret Scripture, and misunderstand what the Church means by Tradition.

What is Tradition?

In this debate it is important to understand what the Catholic Church means by Tradition. Contrary to the belief of numerous persons outside and even within the Church, the term, “Tradition,” does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, liturgical rubrics or even “avoiding to take a bath for a full week after baptism.” Sacred or Apostolic Tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. It is true that a majority of these teachings overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

Jesus and the Apostles were Pro-Tradition

Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3) (Mark 7:9 is parallel). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles (Sacred Tradition) which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs. Let’s look at Matthew 15:6–9, "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Jesus was not condemning all traditions, only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12). Kaffinator, granted you are correct in saying that Jesus used and instructed with passages from the Old Testament often, but He also instructed His followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3, Mark 7:9 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They fail to see that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

The Bible denies that it alone is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching compiled in Sacred Scripture that came to them years later. Jesus instructed his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given by Christ the authority to teach; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

How would the apostle make disciples of all the nations? By giving everyone they met a Bible? No, but by preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a serious error to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

The laity must wake up to the good news of Vatican II. For the first time in the history of the Church, a whole document is dedicated to us. I think if more lay people knew this more of us would read it. We are not just to “pay, pray, and obey”. Do we know we have a special mission that no priest, bishop or religious in the Church can do for us? Yes, we have an indispensable role in the Church, and I believe that if the majority of us understood this role, we would have a vastly different kind of Church. We do make up about 99% of the Church. Do you know what this role is?

I must admit I myself didn’t fully understand this until recently: Our mission as laypersons is the renewal of the temporal order!

We need to understand that Christ came to save mankind, the pinnacle of creation, and in the process the whole temporal ordered must also be renewed. We need to see that only we have this special position in life, both as Christians and as worldly citizens. The hierarchy does not engage with the world the way we do. At work and school, laypersons have countless opportunities for evangelization and sanctification, which the hierarchy does not have. We need to take responsibility and recognize this crucial mission of ours.

I am trying to keep this as short as possible, so hopefully the reader has gotten this far. For my final petition: please take the time to read the awesome documents of Vatican II. I would recommend starting with this document, which is written specifically for the average Catholic, and working your way to more central documents like Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum. It isn't more difficult to read than your average Time or Newseek article. Most documents are quite short as well. As our wonderful recent popes have said, Vatican II is the compass that guides us through the specific problems of our times.

John 20:1-8. Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid them.” Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stopping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;

I’m curious: from a protestant perspective, why did the disciple John wait? Why not go in? If the disciples are all equal in stature, shouldn’t he have gone in first (since he got there first)?

This passage ties closely into the Catholic argument that Peter was “first among equals.” As we’ve pointed out before, Peter’s name is always mentioned first when listed with other disciples. Even here, Mary Magdalene runs to “Simon Peter and the other disciple.” And the other disciple? He waits until Simon Peter enters the tomb first.

God bless,
Jay

The following story was reported by the Catholic News Agency. The Traditional Anglican Communion is the Anglican group that has not succumb to the liberal madness of the rest of Anglican Church. They have reject the ordination of women, abortion, homosexuality, etc. It is interesting how when one remains committed to the truth one inevitably comes home to Rome. God bless them.

Anglican group seeks reunion with Rome

Portland, Sep. 30, 2005 ( CNA) - The Anglican Church in America has decided to seek union with the Roman Catholic Church. If unification were successful, this would be the first post-Reformation church to reunite with Rome, reports journalist Ken Tatro from “keep me current” in Oregon. The Anglican Church in America is part of the worldwide Traditional Anglican Communion, which consists of churches that split from the mainstream Anglican Communion in 1979 in opposition to the ordination of women clergy and to changes made to the Book of Common Prayer, which includes the basic doctrines and prayers.

Tatro reported that an international gathering of members of the Traditional Anglican Communion, including their highest-ranking cleric, Archbishop John Hepworth, met at St. Paul’s in Portland last week.

They voted in favor of starting a formal discussion with Rome and eventually creating what is called a “single Eucharist community.” This would allow members of the Traditional Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church to take communion at each other’s churches.

The leaders hope to propose a formal plan to the Vatican by next year. It is unclear how long the process of reunification will take.

Despite unification, from a basic theological and operational standpoint, nothing will be different within the church, said Very Rev. Lester York, dean of St. Paul’s.

York told Tatro that St. Paul’s is gaining membership as the Episcopal Church ordains homosexual clergy and debates blessing same-sex unions. He said his church is attracting people who no longer find the liberalism of other Protestant faiths acceptable.

Formal unity with Rome would better reflect the sect’s doctrine, York told the reporter. He said his church’s beliefs are similar to Roman Catholic and has the same seven sacraments.

Traditional Anglican Communion leaders have been discussing unification with Rome for the past few years, York reported. These discussions have included former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI.

This information is from Catholic News Agency

To learn more about this particular Anglican group please visit The Messenger, their official newsletter website. The fact that they are seeking union with Rome is mentioned as well in the following article from their website:

TRADITIONAL ANGLICAN CHURCH BISHOPS ENDORSE EFFORTS TO SEEK INTERCOMMUNION WITH ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
September 23 2005
THE Archbishop of the Traditional Anglican Communion and primate of the largest conservative Anglican Church in the world has received an endorsement from the U.S. and Central American Church bodies meeting in Portland, Maine this week to begin developing a plan for intercommunion and unity with Rome . The Most Reverend John Hepworth, the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, attended the meeting of the General Synod of the Anglican Church in America during the week of September 20-24. The Church bodies gave him an endorsement of his efforts to re-establish formal unity with the Holy See in Rome.

He has led efforts on behalf of the Church to re-establish unity with the Roman Catholic Church with whom he has had discussions for the last several years. He has also made an effort to establish communion with European Lutherans seeking similar common ground with Rome. "We have no doctrinal differences with Rome which would keep us from being in full communion with each other" said the Archbishop in a recent interview. The climate is brewing for the Traditional Anglican Communion to be the 27th ecclesial group accepted into communion with Rome and the first church touched by the Reformation to do so. "My broad vision is to see the end of the Reformation of the 16th century." Archbishop Hepworth said if Christians truly believe in the notion of an undivided Church, they ought to discover what it takes to find unity with both East and West and "be liberated from everything that stops it."

The General Synod of the Anglican Church in America , including the Bishop of Central America, endorsed the efforts of the Primate today in a strong vote of support. The worldwide Traditional Anglican Communion will now begin the preparation of a formal unity plan to present to the Vatican next year outlining how intercommunion may be accomplished. The two churches have similar theological beliefs. The American Church was the last of the jurisdictions to endorse the efforts of the Primate due to timing of their National Synod. The Traditional Anglican Communion has members in 44 countries around the world.

In Christ,
Joe