The Purest Feeling

“Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.” It seems simple enough, doesn’t it? I still had a hard time with it. No matter what I did I couldn’t seem to find God. I grew deeply discouraged and gave up seeking Him for a while. I wouldn’t say that I abandoned faith, but I definitely did not seek it.

All that changed one day when a kind old priest invited me to attend Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. I’ll never forget that man. I was in the military at the time and I went to go speak with a chaplain about some of my troubles. He was the only one available at the time so we sat down and talked. After hearing what I told him he simply invited me into the Church. I thought that he was crazy. I wasn’t Catholic. In fact, I was sort of anti-Catholic. What was he doing asking me to join the Church? Through all this remembered that I took a leap of faith coming to the Chaplain’s office in the first place so I said a quick prayer. That prayer changed my life. I told God that I trusted him by going to the chaplain to begin with so I’ll do whatever he tells me (sound familiar?). I was confirmed the following Easter.

I found a way to draw near to God. Catholic spirituality is very defined, much more so than my Bible study and Hillsong Protestant background. I found freedom within those rules, much as St. Paul said there is freedom in being a slave to Christ. I found a way to draw near to God, nearer than I ever thought was possible.

Catholics, we have a tremendous gift in our faith. God gave us a wonderful deposit through his Church from the Liturgy of the Hours to Eucharistic Adoration, and even receiving the Blessed Sacrament itself. Don’t take it for granted. Use what you have. Draw near to Christ through his Church and he will most assuredly draw near to you.

God bless us all.

I Need Your Discipline

Nothing aside from possibly Mary the Mother of God seems to raise Protestant hackles quite as much as Purgatory.. Protestants often say that Purgatory is not in the Bible and therefore is not a legitimate belief. Setting aside quibbles over the sufficiency of Scripture, Purgatory is indeed a valid and even Scriptural belief.

First, we must understand that nothing unclean may enter heaven. Revelation 21:27 states, “But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven], nor anyone who practices abominations or falsehoods…” All Christians accept that they still commit sins, even after baptism or conversion. If this is true then how does one enter heaven with such sin on his or her conscience? Is it simply dismissed upon death?

The answer is found in 1 Corinthians 3:15, “If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”  This verse and the rest of the chapter speak of laying a foundation for our lives (Jesus, faith, salvation, etc.) and then building upon it. This is a metaphor for our lives as Christians and how what do “echoes in eternity.” Here St. Paul is clearly saying that some of what we build in life may not matter in the hereafter, it may be destroyed. Already we see the vague references to some kind of cleansing in the life to come.

You see, St. Paul believed in Purgatory, even though he did not call in that (it did not get that name until long after he died). He was Jewish and knew the Maccabean story. In this story, the Jewish rebels fought against their oppressors in order to preserve their religion and culture.  During one of the battles some of the rebels committed a sin, so their leader offered prayers on their behalf because he was expecting them to rise again.  He “did this with the view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. This he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from sin.” - 2 Maccabees 12:45-46.

St. Paul never repudiated this belief, so it only makes sense to read his writings in 1 Corinthians in context of this belief. St Paul also practiced customs associated with belief in Purgatory, such as praying for a deceased friend (2 Timothy 1:16-18) and baptizing for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29-30).

Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ also taught from this belief. As something of a contemporary of St. Paul and a good Jew, Christ would have known about and most likely practiced the same things as Paul regarding the dead. In Matthew 5:26, he told his audience that they ought to make amends lest they end up in prison, because “you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.”  Early Christians understood this to be a parable for atoning for sins in this life or the next. Tertullian, only a century or so removed from Christ’s earthly ministry, wrote,

It is therefore quite in keeping with this order of things, that that part of our nature should be the first to have the recompense and reward to which they are due on account of its priority. In short, inasmuch as we understand "the prison" pointed out in the Gospel to be Hades, and as we also interpret "the uttermost farthing" to mean the very smallest offence which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection, no one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides. http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-22.htm#P3085_1117545

None of this in any way abrogates or supplants Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross.  Anyone that dies and then finds himself in Purgatory is assured of going to heaven.  Purgatory is merely the temporal payment for sins.  Philippians 2:23 admonishes believers to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” Catholics believe that Purgatory is just part of that process, because, as I said before, “nothing unclean will enter heaven.”

Purgatory is a sign of hope, for we know that we have made it. The souls in Purgatory “are assured of their eternal salvation.” -CCC 1054.  They just have to work it out a little more, just as though anyone going to a wedding will brush off his jacket, smooth her dress, straighten his tie, or touch up her lipstick before going inside the Church.  

So we see that Purgatory is indeed in Scripture.  The ancient Jews believed in it, the Apostles never repudiated it and continued beliefs and practices consistent with it, and even Jesus taught in its context. We should do as the Apostles did and keep praying for those in Purgatory while doing our best to avoid it.

God bless us all.

Another Version of the Truth

YouTube is a funny place. There's no end to the crazy things that you can find there, especially in the suggested videos section. Today's insanity comes from a debate over the Eucharist, starring Matt Slick and someone with the Google + handle “Amen.” You can guess which was arguing against the Eucharist being the Real Presence.

I realize that this video is almost three years old, but I think it's a great example of the lengths that Protestants will reach in order to prove Catholics wrong. I also think that it's worth talking about because Matt Slick has a lot of influence on Google + and as I've said before, I don't want misconceptions about Catholicism to propagate. Anyways, on to the debate.

One of the objections Slick raised during the debate was from Leviticus 17:14, which reads,

“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’"

Matt went on to argue that literally eating the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ was specifically prohibited by the Levitical Law and the Old Covenant.  Here's the video for reference.

I was surprised to hear this one. It was one of the most interesting and novel objection to Catholic doctrine that I have ever heard. It's also ridiculous. To understand why, let's look at the preceding verses,

"‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’ Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.’ So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. 

“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’"

At first glance Slick's argument seemed pretty clear-cut, but the rest of the passage undermines him. Verse 11 is particularly telling, since the parallels between this verse and Catholic doctrine are striking. I wonder why Slick didn't bother mentioning this part. It's a glaring oversight, especially since towards the end of the debate Slick declared victory because "Amen" was not able to answer the objecting in a way that satisfied Slick. He's hanging his argument on this verse, and when read in context it really doesn't do what Slick wants it to do.

Slick's objection that Christ and the Apostles were still under the Old Covenant also falls flat. All one has to do is read the entire story of the Last Supper, especially this one little tidbit from Luke 22:19-20,

"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you."

It's clear the Christ was instituting a New Covenant as he spoke, and it's not too much a stretch to link the Last Supper to the overall Passion. Christ had already established himself as a divine authority during the Sermon on the Mount, where he said over and over, "You have heard it said... but I say to you..." while discussing the 10 Commandments. He basically told everyone there that he was re-writing the Old Testament Law, the Decalogue, which was the entire basis for the Hebrew religion.

Scripture is indeed important, but it's a package deal. As Slick is so fond of telling Catholics, "do not set Scripture against Scripture." Well, it seems that he's doing exactly that. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, though, because Hanlon's Razor.

All Scripture is taken from the New American Standard Bible.

EDIT:  I'm not calling Matt Slick stupid with the Hanlon's Razor reference.  This is a pretty elementary error that begged me to correct it. Ignorant might be a better word. Ignorance can be fixed and it's usually an honest mistake. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially since I like to argue in good faith. Like here: (Yes, I really am that bad looking and yes I really did just plug my own YouTube channel with my own blog)

March of the Pigs

The Council of Google Plus convened on Holy Saturday, March 26th, and summarily declared most everyone else in Christian circles to be heretics. It made quite a splash around Google + and prompted some of my friends to publish rebuttals. I thought of doing some kind exhaustive take down of my own, but I could not stay motivated to finish. I just could not take the “Council” seriously.

I have to laugh because they seem to think they have some sort of binding authority based on their interpretation of Scripture. Matt Slick, the de facto leader (dare I say Bishop?) of this so-called council repeatedly criticizes other Christian doctrines as personal interpretations. He runs his Bible-believing train right off the tracks when he does this because he fails the test he sets up for other doctrines. Before I go on, you should know that by a Bible-believing I mean either implicit or explicit doctrines of sola Scriptura. Matt crashed the train because sola Scriptura  and its offshoots in no way show us how we can know which interpretation of Scripture is the right one.

Most believers in sola Scriptura, or as I like to call it sola haeresis, will say that either the meaning of the text is plain or that the Holy Spirit will provide the correct interpretation. What happens when two well, educated people differ on the meaning of the text? What if two righteous, Spirit-filled people differ on the meaning of the text? The disagreement will really boil down to who thinks their interpretation is correct. What kind of authority is that?

There is only one authority when it comes to Scripture. Only the Magisterium of the Church can interpret it. That's the only way to do it, through the lens of Sacred Tradition and the Church's authority. What happens when people stray outside the Church's authority is pretty clear from watching the “Council.”

A lot of people are angry about the “Council” and rightly so. I just cannot bring myself to much more than indifference, or maybe bemusement. These guys are coming at everything from the same position they do not like. They are subjectivists living in an objective world. Let us be objective and look to the authority that Christ established for truth. Above all, let us refrain from making up ourselves.

Why Are We so Damned Nice?

Anthony Esolen from LifeSiteNews.com posted an interesting article on the current problem with moral discourse. In it he discusses how social considerations have intruded on popular moral discourse, much its detriment. I completely agree with him, but I don't think he really struck at the root of the problem, which I think has a lot to do with the way philosophy is taught. 

I recently read a book by Taylor R. Marshall called Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages: A Layman's Quick Guide to Thomism. He wrote about this exact phenomenon on page 56,

Ethics is thus a learned and applied life of virtue. Nowadays, college freshmen are typically exposed to situational ethics in introductory philosophy courses. They are usually given difficult, even impossible, moral dilemmas and then asked to solve them. These kinds of “philosophical experiments” are misguided and juvenile. Their ultimate aim is to lead students into a form of utilitarianism—choosing the most useful option—or into a form of consequentialism—choosing the option with best-foreseen outcome. Both schools are very dangerous.

The moral dilemmas he was referencing usually come in the form of choosing whether to save e a baby or ten retirees from impending disaster. This tends to impart upon the student that morality is something for each individual to be discovered in the moment, it is subjective, and you have to make it up as you go along. 

This is ludicrous, of course. Real moral decision making must be based on an external source and then refined over time, much as one would work out a muscle or develop a mental discipline. It's not too difficult to see how utilitarianism or consequentialism are both woefully inadequate in their shortsightedness. No human has the capacity to properly evaluate decisions in this context. If they did they would be something akin to Frank Hebert's God Emperor of Dune an unimaginably tedious novel of pontification on moralistic totalitarianism in the same vein as Atlas Shrugged, only harder SF.

Human beings must ground their moral decision making in something objective, that is outside their own individual experience, in order to have any sort of useful discourse on morality. These are simple truths that a person can discover through reason, if only they are taught how to reason. That sadly seems not to be the case for many people if what Mr. Esolen is saying is true. The ramifications of this will likely be lost on those without the proper moral grounding, which makes the case for objective morality so much more urgent before we drown in swill of relativism.

Kalam Cosmology

Reasonable Faith with Dr. William Lane Craig released a new video today, and while I haven't finished watching it yet (I had to stop at the Q&A part), I have to say that it is the most interesting video that Reasonable Faith has published in a while.  Dr. Craig's explanation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument was extremely profound that touched on many important theological themes. Many of these reminded me of a couple things that one of my favorite modern evangelists, Fr. Robert Barron of Word on Fire Ministries, said about Scripture and theology. 

Fr. Barron describes Genesis is a an amazing book of theology. Dr Craig described in his video an ancient debate between Hebrew and Greek philosophy, the former holding that the universe had a beginning and the latter holding that the universe is eternal. Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created..." is a very profound theological statement, and also Dr. Carig's closing statement. 

Modern audiences seem to lose the gravity of this. We live an era of unprecedented development in cosmology and the philosophical notion that the universe has a beginning seems to be lost on us. It's easy to take the universe's beginning for granted given the current science of cosmology. Back then, though, it was a pretty significant prediction that turned out to be true. 

Fr. Barron also said much of the language in the Bible is actually pretty defiant. The introduction of the Gospel of Mark, for example, describes Christ in terms ordinarily associated with the Roman Emperor. Using language to subvert the mainstream seems to be a tradition going back to Genesis and speaks to the idea that the Christian religion is a radical one not in the sense of protests and civil disobedience but in the sense that it challenges the popular paradigm.

Christianity is a new way to understand the world. It's not old and dusty. St. Paul understood this and tried to explain it to the Church in Rome, saying "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." - Romans 12:2

Argument from Bad Morals

One of the most common objections to arguments for the existence of God is what I like to call the Argument from Bad Morals. It seems to be fairly common among New Atheists and tends to surface whenever the Argument from Morality comes up. It goes something like this:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Few will object to the first premise since it's the condition for the whole argument. All sorts of objections crop up with the second premise, though. The typical counter-argument goes as follows (there are two variations on Premise two, but the argument is essentially the same):

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2a. Theists (read: "Christians") do immoral things.

2b. God does immoral things.

3. Therefore objective moral do not exist and it follows that God cannot exist. 

One can immediately see that the third premise does not follow the second, it's a non sequitur. It also fails to price that objective moral values exist.

Theist immorality is really a non-issue as far as the Moral Argument goes because it doesn't prove anything, except maybe that Christians and Jews are mistaken about a few things. So it fails to disprove God but it can't because it has no bearing on the existence of Jesus, his divine nature, death, and resurrection.

It seems that they are really trying to say "God did something I don't like so he's not real." That's absurd. I can't do that to God anymore than I can do it to my boss. 

Next time you hear this, try phrasing their argument like this and see what happens. It will hopefully give them some food for thought. If not, then you can at least be sure you know what's really going on.