Coming Soon! A New CARM Ecumenical Series

In the spirit of ecumenical joy, I will be starting a series of posts in response to articles published at the "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry" (CARM) website. Let me start off by saying one good thing about CARM: they have many decent articles on topics other than Catholicism. (There. I did it. I did my intellectual duty to say something nice. Back to the regularly scheduled blog-post.) Many Catholics believe that Protestants think of them as their brother or sister in Christ, and, in fact, many do. However, this is not always the case. In the section on "Roman Catholicism", CARM founder Matt Slick explains why he included a section on the Roman Catholic Church (with comments in blue):

It is necessary to write a page on Roman Catholicism because there are significant differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrines (and various Protestant sect's doctrine is insignificantly different?). Protestants accuse the Catholics of being unscriptural and the Catholics state that the Protestants do not have the true faith carried through the centuries by the Catholic Church. On which ever side you fall, the real issue is whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is representing true Christianity.

If you are a Roman Catholic, please understand that this site is not meant to offend you in any way (let me define offensive as a poor attempt to understand the position you are arguing against -- let's see if this holds). This site is dedicated to examining the truth, all truth, and comparing it to the Bible. No matter who it is or what group is proclaiming truth, we know that the Bible is the Word of God (I will test that theory, specifically regarding the "Bible" as canon) and that no truth from God will contradict it. I urge you to examine what is here on this site and see if what is being taught here is true. If you do, you will be doing exactly what the Bible commands: to examine all things (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15; Acts 17:11; Jude 3). Since the Catholic Church holds the Bible to be the word of God, I am putting Catholic doctrine to the biblical test.

If you are a Protestant, you will probably (unless you believe to the historic doctrine of baptism regeneration) feel more comfortable browsing these pages since they will, essentially, confront Roman Catholic teachings. It is apparent that the Roman Church has added much to the scope of Christian doctrine that is not revealed in scripture ("apparent" only begs the question, but let's proceed). This is an issue that needs to be addressed. It is vital.

In reference to the Catholic reliance upon (gasp) "Tradition", Mr. Slick goes on to say:

Matt Slick

Apparently, it is Tradition that is the source of doctrines which are clearly not taught in the Bible, but which the Catholic Church still says are implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition. Some of them are as follows: The Mass, Penance, Veneration of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Priesthood, the Confessional, the Rosary, Venial and Mortal Sins, and statues in the Church.

What is interesting about his list is:

1. All the elements of the The Mass come explicitly from Scripture (e.g., consecration, altar, Scripture reading, sign of peace, etc.), setting aside a few phrases and gestures that harken back to both Christian and Jewish traditions. See also The Mass in Scripture.

2. Penance. Boy this is awkward. "No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish." Luke 13:3

3. Veneration of Mary- "Every generation will call me blessed." This is a complicated issue, but to say that veneration is "clearly not taught in the Bible" is a hermeneutic decision not the result of a clear-as-day proof-text. If a distinction between veneration and worship can be made -- and there is, then there is nothing in Scripture even approaching a disapprobation of venerating Mary.

4. Setting aside the rest of the list for time's sake, the great irony is that the phrase "implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition" could be replaced with "implicit within its text and elucidated through evangelical-Protestant tradition" as an explanation and/or apology for Mr. Slick's particular doctrinal commitments. Especially considering that he denies baptismal regeneration. In other words, no man is a tradition-less island unto himself.

At this point, I am starting to gather that CARM is not inviting me to write a guest article. Anyways, remember they are a "research" ministry. In an attempt, I guess, to bring fellow Protestants into the illuminati of the inner circle of Roman Catholic theology, Mr. Slick kindly offer his reader a "terminology section". Since the term "Tradition" plays so heavy right out of the gate in his contention with Roman Catholic doctrine, I was interested to find out how he defines that term.

Tradition - handing down through the centuries from mouth to mouth of the teachings of Jesus. It began with the apostles and continues unbroken to the present bishopric of the Catholic Church.

Nice try.

For starters, Tradition is not exclusively oral. In fact, most of the Traditions of the Church can be found in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Tradition does include the teachings of Christ as handed off to the Apostles. These teachings and way of life and worship are preserved in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church. They are not only preserved but grow -- being active, living and dynamic -- in Christ's Church through the work of the Holy Spirit.

In the spirit of outreach (I gather), and just below the "copy and paste" section on the Catechism whereby Mr. Slick enjoys an out-of-context-extravaganza, there is a section that is a kind of "Coming Out Network International". In this case, and unlike the Coming Home Network, the "outers" are former priests. Many of the original Protestants were former priests, thus, there is nothing really sensational about a few priests defecting. However, what is amazing, according to Mr. Slick, with regards to their stories is:

"As you can see, even Roman Catholic Priests can discover the truth found in God's word and escape the error of the Roman Catholic system of works righteousness.  To God be the glory." (source)

Not so fast...

In an effort to improve the Google meta-associations between Mr. Slick's articles and the truth, I will be periodically writing posts in response to published CARM articles. Let this post serve notice, and may my personal conversion story bare witness, that even a Protestant can discover the "ground and pillar of truth" and escape the error(s) of Protestantism. (Hint: 1 Timothy 3:15) 


Glory be to God. 

Click Here To Subscribe to Almost Not Catholic

A Protestant Pastor Becomes A Catholic Deacon

This is a video of my friend's first sermon as a Catholic deacon. He was a pastor for 33 years in an evangelical, Protestant denomination.  

I also encourage you to check out his blog, Heart for God.

Enjoy!

Thou Shalt Go

Here.

Or, just go directly here and help some African seminarians obtain the important theological resources they need. Any contribution counts.

"And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." - Matthew 10:42

Which means:

"And whosoever shall give a CD of books to young, poor seminarians in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." - Brent's paraphrase

A Pentecostal Celebrates Pentecost

My grandmother recounts a story of happening upon a church where they were handling snakes. She has also told me a story about exposing a "Jesus-only" evangelist. She and her friend shouted him down right out of the tent revival pulpit he was occupying. Shame on him, she says, for teaching heresy. We were Trinitarian Pentecostals: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

I know for many of you, the picture above may concern you. However, let me give that picture some context.

A Brief Historical Narrative of Pentecostalism

For 400 or so odd years, Protestant Christians had been told more or less that Christianity could be reduced to pure dogma. I mean, it was enough to leave the Catholic Church over, so what could be more important? Sound doctrine is important, but out came the bath water and the baby. With an empty bath tub came the 20th century, the industrial revolution (impact on broader society), and a television set in every home. People were becoming less religious, and pure dogma soon become synonymous with religious slogan.

Enter the Pentecostals.

They believed some simple things. Simple things like: God is real -- more real than a television. Also, that the God of the Bible is the God of today -- untamed, desiring holiness, and mighty. Now, had this movement started in the universities, it might have taken on a different contour, but it didn't. It took off in the farmhouse and in the downtown shanty. It started amongst the poor, the marginalized, and the very Protestant. For 400 years, the primacy of the individual conscience had reigned supreme, and by this time denominations evidencing this fact, too numerous to mention, covered the face of the earth.

Which meant one things: nothing was stopping this train.

And a "train" it was.

A map of the explosive growth of Pentecostalism

Growth is not the sine qua non of truth. A similar map of the proliferation of television, canned goods, or Bubble Yum might look just like the growth graphic above. Nevertheless, the growth of Pentecostalism in the US, even the world, might be attributed to dual competing forces: consumerist capitalism and a vital spiritualism. Pentecostalism offered both: a Protestant style ecclesiology without all the historical hang-ups, effusiveness, and eventually an electric guitar. It also emphasized personal, private, ecstatic experience, and there is nothing that sells better than low-start-up cost experience. Nothing.

Enters Me.

The irony of Pentecostalism is that they (or "it") do not celebrate Pentecost. Nothing hints at the ahistorical more than a movement which fails to celebrate the historical event that constitutes what it thinks for itself as its origin. It would be like "Revolutionists" letting September 3rd come and go as if nothing happened on that day (hint: Treaty of Paris) in the history of the Revolutionary War. Of course, the failure of Pentecostalism to formally celebrate Pentecost can be explained and understood two ways. First, Pentecostalism doesn't formally do anything (or at least they would have you think that). Second, they think that they are celebrating Pentecost every Sunday in their worship style and general spirituality. However, the problem with this second point is that it fails to appreciate that Pentecost was an event not the inauguration of a style or type of spirituality (It did inaugurate something...).

So, I am stuck being a Pentecostal who doesn't celebrate Pentecost.

Awkward moment.

Enters the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch

She believed some simple things. Simple things like: God is real -- more real than a television. Also, that the God of the Bible is the God of today -- untamed, desiring holiness, and mighty. Now, had this movement started amongst the elite, it might have taken on a different contour, but it didn't. It took off in the catacombs and in the blood-stained Colosseum. It was led by a rag-tag crew, chief of whom was a sometimes petulant fisherman. It started amongst the poor and the marginalized. For 2000 years, the Catholic Church exists, manifesting the enduring presence of Christ in His Church -- the One for which the gates of hell shall never prevail. Despite schism, moral poverty amongst her leaders, secularism, and a myriad of other movements, the Church still shines as a beacon of truth. She is a city set on a hill. She cannot be hidden.

She will not be hidden.

So this fifth generation Pentecostal preacher boy found Her. Despite all odds, I am now Catholic. Today is a special day for me. Today, I celebrate the Feast of Pentecost. Today, I celebrate being home. To my separated brothers and sisters who worship now in the "Sanctuary of Praise", "Tabernacle of Power", or "First Assembly of God"...come home.

The Church is waiting for you. She has a feast She celebrates in May you might enjoy.

Because Pentecost was a day we should never forget. Agree?

Veni, Sancte Spiritus

What does it mean to be "Apostolic"?

One of the most confusing things about modern day Christendom, dare I say an unintended consequence of the Reformation, is the ubiquitous use of the term "Apostolic".

What does it mean to be "Apostolic"?

Obviously, the plumb-line for "Apostolic" in the mind of the modern day Protestant is all over the map.  "Apostolic" can just as easily be swapped for "Bible believing" in these communities, and given the doctrine of sola scriptura, we should pause to ask ourselves why the swap? If the Bible is the alleged singular authority for the Protestant, why claim Apostolicity? It really would add nothing, right? On their view, the Apostles could err, and in fact many of them probably did given that not all of them wrote a book of the Bible. Thus, why present yourselves or market your Christian brand as "Apostolic" if in your paradigm that does little to distinguish you as uniquely orthodox? I mean in the Protestant paradigm there is no apostolic succession, so who cares if you are "Apostolic"?

Ah, but we do care. They care. And, as you examine what is implied by the word and how it is used, let me offer for you a definition of "Apostolic" in the Protestant world:

Apostolic: (adj) To be like the Apostles. A Christian denomination who believes that their teaching is in conformity to the Apostles' teaching. Example: Johnny believes in Jesus only baptism, and shows Sarah where it is in the Bible. He explains that the Trinity is a made up religious term, and asks Sarah to find the word in the "Apostolic" writings. She cannot. He explains that his church is "Apostolic", and that she should leave her church that believes in "man-made traditions". 

Notice that "Apostolic" does not mean you have a real relationship to the Apostles. It just means that the Apostles, the people themselves, purported a theory that if you think you more or less hold on your view, voila apostolique! It's just that simple! Of course, in no way do I mean to imply that what the Apostles taught is not important, but I'm trying to tease out the implication of the alternative to the Catholic approach. If a real relationship to the Apostles is irrelevant -- if the Apostles really did not follow the example of Christ and draft disciples themselves and pass off their ministries -- then the Apostles themselves (the ones who sit on 12 thrones of judgment in heaven -- Matthew 19:28) are irrelevant. 

Moreover, on this view, Christ is the one who came to establish the true theory of Christianity. It is a family centered on a common creed, and while that last clause is not entirely false, it is an incomplete view of what Christ did. If Christ gave us the Apostles only to be the purveyors of the right propositions, then I argue that this view of Christianity comes closest to Gnosticism. In fact, well before I was Catholic or even thinking about Catholicism, I had an epiphany along these lines. If Christianity is merely a set of true propositions, and those propositions only exist in my mind, then Christianity is a subjectivist religion. Of course, the rejoinder is that the propositions are not in my mind, they are in the Bible. However, my analysis of that rejoinder was that while the source of the content was Scripture, the intellect and subsequent teacher of that content was always and everywhere me. I was reading the book and writing the lesson plans. What started to emerge, if only but as an impression, was a creeping suspicion that the Protestant paradigm supported a relativist view of truth. For our purposes, the word "Apostolic" being a solid case study for the phenomena.

How does Catholicism escape this dilemma? Isn't it true that I would still have to hold the true statements the Church teaches, and would not those propositions be similar to the propositions I held from Scripture as a Protestant? No. For starters, the entire paradigm is different, and when a Protestant levels this critique, he is thinking about Catholic dogma from within a Protestant paradigm. The Protestant has no teacher. The Church, certainly is not his teacher because if his "conscience" tells him he disagrees with the Church, he will simply find a "church" that does agree with him. Thus, he is the teacher: he reads the book and writes the lesson plan.

On the contrary, the process of "source" + "intellect/teacher" = "teaching" is modified significantly under the Catholic paradigm. On the Catholic view, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition represent the dual sources of the deposit of faith. The Teaching Office of the Church (Magisterium) possesses in a unique way the "mind of Christ" (intellect) and is empowered by the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth. The subsequent "teaching" is different in species than the source of the theology. That is why the infallible teaching of the Magisterium should not be confused with the inspired source of that teaching. Some Protestants believe that Catholics hold Church teaching in the same way they hold Scripture, therefore, subjugating Scripture to the Church. That is not true. Church teaching comes from Scripture (and Sacred Tradition), and therefore is always indebted to it. So, the Catholic who affirms Church teaching affirms the Sacred deposit of faith and acknowledges the divinely protected agency of the Church. 

"Now you are getting it!"

The Catholic is not in the same position regarding doctrine as the Protestant because in the intellectual brou-ha-ha, the Church always wins. She writes the lesson plan. That means I -- as a Catholic -- can point to doctrine "x" and always say it comes "from the Church".  This locates the propositions of dogma outside of me and in the Church. Subjectivism solved. Relativism averted. Silly uses of the phrase "Apostolic" prevented. 

So getting back to the phrase "Apostolic"...

The problem with de-humanizing the phrase "Apostolic" is that it's referent is a group of people -- not a theology. Of course, the Apostles had a theology, but let's not imagine for a moment that the people who were the Apostles are irrelevant. God did not call Apostles to be members of an elite theology club. He called Apostles to be fathers of a family. His family. That is why the ubiquitous use of the word is so misleading. Try to find even one example in the early Church (I don't know, first 1,500 years) of someone claiming apostolicity simply on the grounds that they had copy of the New Testament. It no worky. It "no worky" means that to use "Apostolic" in a similar way today doesn't work for the same reasons. Which leads us to one of the great quandaries of modern man. You see, modern man sees the world as his opportunity to create, to innovate, because there is no meaning in the world. 

Modern Man: Who am I?

He looks around his suburban apartment, checks his Twitter feed, and flips through a few pages of Bazaar. 

Modern Man: Where am I?

Fidgety, he spends the evening going back and forth between FX and re-runs of "I Love Lucy"

Modern Man: What do I believe?

He passes through the door, finding his seat in section 9-A. The music lifts his soul. It was a Friday he would rather forget. 

Modern Man: I am an Apostolic Christian.

What is stopping him?

Click Here To Subscribe to Almost Not Catholic

The Dads Are on Tap! The Canon in a Can. Sorry.

Devin and I were at it again! Here's the low-down:

• We talk about the role the canon of Scripture played in our conversion to Catholicism
• We discuss the relationship between self-authentication and Tom Cruise
• We consider a "new" reply to the Catholic objection to the Protestant argument for the canon
• Unfortunately, Devin sounds like he is in a can. Sorry.

ENJOY!

You can subscribe to the podcast here.

Keeping Your Kids Catholic

I'm over at Ignitum Today, blogging about faith, family and culture:

Nothing is more frightening than a discussion about “Mercy Killing” than a discussion about “Mercy Killing”. What I mean is that when you are a parent, all of these abstractions — as my friend likes to wax all Danske about — cannot remain abstractions for more than a minute. You don’t talk about this stuff over carmel lattes, instead, it deserves Scotch — on the rocks. Times of war, where death and life are faced head-on —  lived in the tangible terminology of bravery, sacrifice and freedom, are times when the pub is the center-piece of the town. Today, Starbucks is our tavern, and that should tell us something about ourselves.

Because when you have kids, a latte won’t cut it. (I’m not advocating for drunkenness, I’m simply observing that we live in a time when life is viewed as a kind of light and fluffy cappuccino. The irony is that we are drinking these fraps smack-dab in the middle of Helm’s Deep.)

The culture of death (a.k.a., the culture of contraception) has impotently thrust upon western civilization more ills than I can recount in this post. Let me just point out an obvious one: children themselves have become an abstraction. We talk about them as an accessory, banding about little memes like: “They are the greatest things that can happen to you”. Even Catholics think about these “great things” in less than human terms, not because our faith or even our humanity informs the idea but rather that the culture we live in so forcefully, so programmatically, reinforces the theme. However, we are only victims of this pedagogical rhythm of death because we are sipping the lattes. So, naturally…

You can read the whole thing here.

Book Review: Quotable Wesley by Dave Armstrong

Before I read this fine piece of work by Catholic apologist extraordinaire Dave Armstrong (you can find all the ways to buy here), I was already in possession of an anthology of John Wesley's sermons. In fact, for me personally, John Wesley's theology was a kind of bridge between Protestantism and Catholicism -- for Wesley had a foot in both Rome and Geneva. As a life-long Anglican, Wesley's theology was indebted to the Catholic tradition insomuch that Anglicanism at that time was indebted to Catholicism. Wesley also had a conversion experience while on a ship to America with a group of Moravians (who are descendants of John Huss). That experience also shaped Wesley, and made him, I think, sympathetic to the low-church tide of emerging late 18th century Protestantism.

As you may all know, I don't write full book reviews. I write "sleeve-cover book reviews". That means that what I write could be printed on the back of a sleeve cover. Before I do that, let me just say that this book is a valuable resource to anyone who (a) is interested in understanding the non-Calvinist strand of Protestantism, (b) has a general interest in the thoughts of John Wesley or (c) is seeking to understand Methodism, Wesleyanism, modern Holiness Movements, and/or Pentecostalism. Regarding the later (c), in so much that all four movements have shaped the contemporary Protestant landscape (and they have), all four are all deeply indebted to John Wesley. And, I might add, indebted in many cases in the very best ways. My affections for Wesley aside, here is my review:

 "Dave Armstrong -- Catholic apologist and combox sensei -- in "Quotable Wesley: Theology and Conversion of Heart" puts down his apologetics gi and catalogs for the interested reader or researcher hundreds of quotes by the homilist par excellence John Wesley. With Wesley, you get the mixed bag that is Protestantism, but in that mixed bag you find some most delicious fruit. Armstrong makes all of it low-hanging and for that reason alone, we are all deeply indebted. You can get versions of the title for as little as $1.99, making it a just-buy-it-stop-thinking kind of purchase. Yet cheap isn't the main reason to buy it. Point blank, Quotable Wesley would be a valuable part of any scholar or laymen's library.

More than just encyclopedic value, Wesley's mind portends a key to true Christian re-unificaiton. If he had both a foot in Rome and Geneva, it is easy to imagine that lifting just one foot toward Peter could have a glorious effect. Through his writings, I think you will see that the foundation for so many important theological streams that find their way home to Wesley, can also use Wesley as a tributary to the sandy shores of the Tiber. With that possibility in mind and in the words of Flannery O'Connor, "Here comes everybody!"

You can buy the book here.

Click Here To Subscribe to Almost Not Catholic

How to Share the Catholic Faith

I have been asked by former Protestants more than once how to share the Catholic faith. There are at least two reasons why the former Protestant -- now Catholic -- has some kind of hesitation or reservation as to the "how to" of sharing their Catholic faith. For starters, the road to Rome is littered with theological jargon and the exploring of theological issues not theretofore experienced. Thus, one comes under the rightful impression that the Church has been thinking about what she believes for 2,000 years, and that such an extended thought has yielded enough to ponder for a thousand lifetimes. I mean, She is older than plastic unlike at least 10,000 or so Christian denominations -- so it is kind of what you would expect.

The Vatican Library

This perceived complexity leaves the new convert stultified, thinking that by saying "x", they open up can "a" which necessarily leads to opinion "b-1", and we all know that "b-1" leads to what is behind door #2, and so on. This is only reinforced by spending more than a half an hour in a Protestant-Catholic combox on an article about the Papacy. Not to mention, that to the modern mind, St. Thomas Aquinas can seem pedant -- not his fault -- but still a problem nonetheless. All of this reinforcing the observation of how the modern convert to Catholicism struggles in the ocean that is Catholic theology.

Which leads to the second problem: an oversimplified Gospel. Now, I don't mean to say that the story of Christ's passion is not simple. It is. As we say every Sunday at Holy Mass, "We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection, until you come again." This is truly good news! So, the message of the story of our redemption is simple. However, the message of the Messenger was not. Of course, one is always free to go buck-wild and redact the New Testament to something like "Jesus loves me this I know", but that is a far cry from the demands, commands, and instructions Our Savior gave us while on earth. In fact, Christ is the Message, the logos, of the Father. All the books in the world -- even the Bible -- cannot contain the totality of His message. He is the Infinite Word. Thus, it is His message planted in His Church that lives, grows, and is protected by the Holy Spirit. It is the life of the Church -- the Sacred Living Tradition -- that is the continuation of the Incarnate presence of Our Lord on earth.

Yet there are those that think that the promise of the Holy Spirit was a movement, a dispensation even, that de-incarnated Christ. However, it was just the opposite. The Holy Spirit did not come as a ghost in the machine, instead He came as an indwelling presence in...The Church! This dynamism of Church/Spirit concretely gave the Spirit proximity. Men could not say, "The Spirit is here, or the Spirit is there! Go and find the Spirit". Despite the modern chari-evangelicostals insistence that the Spirit is all over the place, the Spirit is not all over the place. The Spirit is in Christ's Church. Why? Because that is where Jesus sent His Spirit.

Let me get back to the two horns of the new convert's dilemma. How can he overcome both the complexity of Catholic theology and his own inclination to oversimplify the Gospel (e.g. "The Roman Road")?

It is actually quite simple.

The story is the same as before only better!

Think about it. Before, the message went something like this (or at least by implication):

Option 1: Jesus died for your sins. He then sent the Bible as your roadmap to heaven. You now must become a Bible scholar, learn Hebrew and Koine Greek, and know the Reformed rules of hermeneutics lest you become a reprobate and go to hell. Isn't this great news! Oh yeah, and you might not be in the elect, but it is fun believing that you are.

"It's all in here, I promise!"

Option 2: Jesus died for your sins. He established a Church that quickly went apostate. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. For about 1,000 years, Christians were very ignorant because the Bible was only translated into the language everyone used for about half that period of time. Then, while on the toilet, this guy name Luther had this idea that changed the world. We are now inheritors of that great idea. Come join us on the crusade of truth!

Option 3: Jesus died for your sins. He loves you. If you died tonight, where would you go? Despite what it looks like on television or on your street corners, Christians are all together. The Church is the collection of all the people that really love God. No one can actually identify who that group is, so you are left joining a church that you like. You should probably make sure they are "Bible believing", which means they have a retired engineer who teaches a Sunday School class, Awana, and NO bongos in the worship service. I repeat: NO BONGOS!

Option 4: In order to be saved you must speak in tongues. Not really. But, everyone who really loves Jesus will speak in tongues one day. Jesus loves you and died so that you can own a Rolls Royce, a suburban, horizontal, zero-lot line apartment, and have a trophy wife.

OR

Catholic Option: Jesus died for your sins. He established a Church. He vested that Church with His authority. He gave that Church his Mother and His Spirit. While it is full of broken people, He has protected the Church from teaching error for 2,000 years. She still exists today. Through unbroken apostolic succession and in union with the See of St. Peter -- the "prime minister"  and prince of the Apostles -- The Catholic Church exists as The Church that Jesus established. This is fantastic news! You are not alone. 

Christ is with us to the end of the age, Alleluia!

That is how you share the Catholic faith.

Peace to you on your journey.

5 Reasons I Would Not Blog For Patheos

Since D-Money Rose, flush to his eye-balls with cash, swimming in Benjamin's, rolling cohibas with $20 bills, had the time to write this in between counting the net income in his IRA and stock options, I thought I would share with you my thoughts.

1. I don't have time.

Seriously, my life is way too busy to have to think about blogging all the time. In fact, I'm getting ready to announce a new "you-may-not-see-me-very-often-at-all" blogging schedule. It's coming. I'm not sure Pathos would like that.

2. The banner ads are creepy

For starters, a top banner ad about a "Swedish" anything is kind of creepy. "Swedish Prophet"? Then there is the "Genesis -- For Normal People" ad which promotes a book which basically assumes that normal folks can't read Genesis for themselves -- they need Biblical scholars to talk down to them. Lastly, I'm not sure about the "ancestry.com" ad. What is that about? Did I miss the ancestry worship portal? Never mind, I just found it (I"m not linking to it because I don't believe in promoting paganism).

3. Apparently, you lose street cred. Which I'll admit, I live for.

No elaboration needed.

4. At the bottom of your post, they link to posts of other non-Catholic blogs. 

Nothing like a seeker, stumbling upon a light-hearted post at your blog, only to be wisped away by a link to an article about inner healing through she-god-love-centeredness.

5. They cannot pay me enough.

I know on my last post, I said I would write for Patheos because they pay. Well, please understand that Patheos probably does not have the budget to pay me what I need to get paid. In fact, I know they don't. Plus, I think they pay for clicks or page views and by the looks of my blog, it might take me a couple months to earn enough dough to pay for the internet it took me to write those posts. That's not what they call breaking even.

All that to say, I'm glad we have some rock-solid-bad-arsenic Catholics blogging there. I recommend saying a prayer for them and all of their readers too.

Will All Be Saved?

No.

The Immaculate Conception

Faith. Hope. Charity. These are the three theological virtues. These three virtues cannot be in conflict with each other. To understand and to possess faith perfectly is to understand and possess hope and charity. One cannot have a hope that is not informed by faith or that is deprived of charity. Well, you could, but then it would not be hope given to you by the Holy Spirit. It would be wishing or something like wishing.

Let us remember the vision Our Lady of Fátima gave to the small children in Portugal, the ones our Lord called "for such is the kingdom of heaven":

"Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear...You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. (source)

Of course, as is always the case, Our Lady was only reminding them of the words of Her Divine Son:

"Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! -Matthew 7:13-14

Many will find hell. Few will find heaven. These are the plain words of Our Lord.

Should we wish this to be the case?

Of course not. It is the will of God that none should perish, but it is not the will of most men to not perish. Instead, they wish for their own way, the way that seems right unto them that leads to death. So if we desire that none should perish, why should we not hope for all to be saved?

They knew that all would not
be saved.

Because our faith informs us that all will not be saved. Hope deferred makes the heart sick (Proverbs 13:12). We should not hope for what is supernaturally impossible, and while all things are possible with God, the salvation of all is as impossible as God creating a rock too big for Him to pick up. To hope for what is against the Divine foreknowledge, or namely that all would be saved -- despite our Lord explicitly telling us the contrary -- is contrary to God. In fact, it is a false, humanistic view of hope that leads to pining for this impossibility. Why? Because faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Faith informs hope. Not the other way around. We should not hope for that which our faith does not inform. It is like hoping for female priests, no purgatory, or the end of the papacy.

So instead of hoping for that which is contrary to faith, we should do penance, be converted, and make reparation for sinners so that those on the road to hell would find the Way -- Christ Jesus -- to heaven. If only but one soul escapes eternal fire, it was worth it.

"It" meaning this:

Guest Post Alert! The Rev is in the House!

Pastor RU Reedy at the New-Year Episcopal

Preach Off Competition 2008 -- 2nd place 

For those who don't remember, Pastor R.U. Reedy fleeces leads a flock at Volt Church, a ministry of Engage Outreach International, a subsidiary of PowerHouse, Inc: wholly owned and operated by OnFire.usa. He has a knack for story-telling and the homiletical spin. For us lay people that means he can get his "preach on".

Brothers and Sisters! What is up? It has been way too long since you and I have shared a moment together in the presence of Jehovah. Can you feel it up in the house? Come on somebody!

As a side note, the other day someone told me that the word Jehovah is not in the Bible. I told them, what do you mean its not in the Bible, I'm a preacher and I've been using the word for over 10 years. You can't touch the anointing baby! Last time I checked, the word "trinity" is not in the Bible, and that isn't stopping any religious folks from using it. Well, if the word "trinity" ain't in the Bible, then who cares if Jehovah is just a really bad transliteration of Yahweh from the Hebrew? It isn't like I'm some kind of Bible scholar. I'm a preacher!

So let me get my preach on! I heard the other day that Brent wrote a post about how he would write for some kind of multi-religious blog called Pathos. At first, I was kind of weirded out. I mean this Pathos place sounds like the mark of the beast. But then I thought about it some more. I really don't know anything about Pathos, but I say if Brent can make some dough...then go baby, go! But then I saw this picture and thought to myself:

"Why isn't Engage Outreach International buying some real-estate on that website"? It's time to bring the glory down! Just imagine. Someone happens upon Brent's blog reading about how to become Catholic and all, and down at the bottom a banner says;

Don't worry you will always
have the poor with you!

"Get Saved. Get Sanctified. Get Secure. Get Securities. With 1-800-NIV-GOLD*"

When they click on the link, it will take them to our newest ministry for those looking to make an investment to build up the kingdom. Don't worry. I'm not talking about the poor -- you will always have them around. That's right, I'm talking about gold! Last time I checked, Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Old Testament but to perfect it. Well, I was thumbing through a few pages somewhere between Exodus and Psalms, and I found a whole bunch of gold up in there.

Money. Cometh. To. Me. Now!

I wonder if Pathos would take the ad? They let all those people pretending they don't want 10 wives on there. You know what I say, the anointing will open up doors God can't even close. Nothing is impossible. If Brent goes to Pathos, I will definitely be selling ads on his blog. Just think of all the souls that will be saved and my the bank accounts that will be filled. That gives me Holy Ghost chill-bumps just thinking about it.

I should probably wrap up this blog sermonette, because I know I've given you a lot to think about. I wouldn't want to load you up with the meat of the Word since you are only just babes trying to come off the liquored-up milk of Romanism. Anyways, most preachers like to quote Scripture. I like to reference Scripture. If you noticed, I talked about Exodus and Psalms. That is two books of the Bible, which makes me a pretty advanced preacher. So before you finish this post, think about that.

Exodus and Psalms! What did you think I was talking about? There are 190 chapters to meditate on between the two. And after you get done, dial 1-800-NIV-GOLD*. Our prayer attendants are standing by.


*1-800-NIV-GOLD is not a real number. If you call that number, I am not responsible for what happens. This was satire. If you dial the number thinking you will reach someone, you have failed to appreciate the satire. In fact, you have failed. Miserably.

7 Theological Quick Takes Friday (vol.10)

-1-

It has been almost 3 months since I did a quick takes. In fact, the last time I did a Quick Takes I was just fresh out of knee surgery. I'm happy to report the surgery went very well, and I am almost back to my old ways. Well, not exactly. I'm actually trying to get back to some new-old-old ways. What I mean is getting back to a regular routine of exercise (my old way before I had kids). So, when I'm finished with this post, I'm lacing up the sneaks and heading to the gym.  

Check me out!

On to some theological fare...

-2-

I am thinking about writing a post: The Canon - A Case Study in Dogmatic Theology. Here's the basic premise. Take my canon article, replace the word canon with "Trinity", "hypostatic union", "Baptismal regeneration", or "virgin birth", and you get the same result. In other words, you only get opinion without the Church -- no dogma. For a more thorough look at this particular train of thought, I highly recommend this article by Dr. Michael Liccione. In fact, if you make a comment in rebut to this particular quick take without reading his article, I will either delete your comment or ignore it. Just a friendly FYI.

-3-

My daughter just received her First Holy Communion. She was absolutely beautiful:

Before Receiving Our Lord -- Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity

Here's what absolutely baffles me. How in the world could a Catholic simply "go through the motions" of First Communion (of course its possible, I just don't get it)? Further, how in the world could a Catholic fail to have a "relationship with Jesus" after preparing for and receiving First Holy Communion? Let me put it this way, no evangelical will have a rats chance in hades to convince my daughter that she needs a "personal relationship with Jesus" because "Catholicism is a religion of works" (cue the scary organ music). Are you kidding? She begs us to go to daily Mass so she can receive our Lord. She loves Jesus -- and more than just love with her heart, she now can give herself totally to our Lord and receive Him in the Most Holy Eucharist.

Sorry guys, she's off the "saving" radar.

Speaking of cultural Catholicism, I wrote about the topic here, if you didn't read it the first time.

-4-

Did you guys know that Patrick Vandapool is blogging again? I know, some of you left him when he decided to take a short hiatus. Here's what I recommend:

GO BACK!

Seriously, Patrick represents ecumenism at its height. He's warm, witty, charming, and open-minded, kind of like this guy:

Who wouldn't let this guy watch their kids?

Actually, I feel bad comparing Patrick to Mike Tyson. Patrick would never bite someone's ear. However, he would apply a pretty strong uppercut to some of these "Bible-believen" theologies that trade in the truth for a set of axioms to make a few hundred thousand people feel important. See, I told you Patrick was a great guy. I call him the:

Dennis Miller of Apologetics

Enough said.

-5-

Quick Takes Question:

What blog post would you like to see written to address an objection to the Catholic faith or to explain a particular part of the Catholic faith for which you may have struggled?

-6-

I'm skipping this one.

-7-

How do I feel about the Catholic Church?

For the zeal of thy house hath eaten me up: and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.- Psalm 69:9

Thanks Hallie for hosting!

Consider subscribing to Almost Not Catholic. Click here to make it happen.

Five Reasons I Would Write for Patheos

1-  Leah
2-  Dean
3-  Jude
4-  Gemma
5-  Luke
5.1- My Wife
5.2- Other children to come

UPDATE: Patheos has never contacted me. The only reason for this post was in response to some who think those that write at Patheos have sold out. 

These are a little more than 5 excellent reasons to write for Patheos, Matheos, Spatheos, or you name it. I don't care. If someone is willing to pay me to write -- for something I am doing for free right now, I will write. Bring it. As long as I don't have to change my mission from "Why I'm Catholic and other things about that" to "Why I'm Catholic and that's just my personal conviction", I'm game. Furthermore, if we all examined our employers, we could all find dubious, unintended, or disparaging reasons not to accept their payment.

"But for only a couple hundred bucks?"

Reason #4

That would be a resounding "YES!"

Diapers, baby food, electricity, you name it, I'm all on board for receiving a small compensation for waking up early every morning and giving people reasons to convert to Catholicism. If it never happens, that's cool. Some people blog for a hobby. I understand why those people don't understand Patheos bloggers.

That's not me. I blog for a reason. 


Reason: To convert people to Catholicism


And I don't think we should retreat from any forum willing to entertain that conversation.

Thoughts?

Should Catholics Try to Convert Protestants?

Not having this is a big deal

Yes.

"But didn't you say that non-Catholics could still go to heaven?"

Yes.

"But doesn't that, like, totally blow up your motivation for converting Protestants?"

No.

"Why?"

Because my previous post was not about Protestants who reject the Church, nor did it say that Protestantism had the fullness of the means of salvation. I mean what is Protestantism, even? Nevertheless and furthermore, my post affirmed implicitly that Protestants like those in Geneva (who received frequent visits from St. Francis de Sales) mortally sinned, being fully aware of "who" the Catholic Church was and is.

"Well then why convert to Catholicism, since it is so messy? Why not just go on in ignorance?"

Accidental ignorance is different than willful ignorance. I cannot simply desire my way to not know something that I already know. Hence, the point of my disclaimer at the end of the last post. Also, salvation is a mystery in the soul. Only God knows what knowledge for which each soul must give an account. What my previous post assumed is the validity of implicit faith, and that doctrine in no way should discourage our missionary efforts.

Last but not least, the mind of the Church on this matter must be considered in light of the Protestant who -- like myself -- was born into a tradition with a sincere love for Christ, who received a valid baptism, and who did not openly, explicitly, willfully or even knowingly reject the Catholic Church. In fact, as soon as I realized what the Catholic Church claimed of Herself -- temporarily by God's grace dispossessed of the chimeras and caricatures of the Church -- I studied and prayed my way into communion with Her. I get it. To know what the Church is and to think you can "follow Christ" and not enter into Her womb is mockery. It is a form of atheism. It is to believe in a God you make up for yourself. It is a Christ of convenience.

"So then why share the faith with our separated brothers and sisters, why not let them go on in ignorance?"

Such an attitude assumes that the particular separated brother or sister you are "protecting" from the Catholic faith will in fact persevere to the end. However, that notion itself is against our faith. We must share our faith, because our faith demands that we share it! We leave God to decide who goes where. It is simply our job to tell the good news.

Jesus died for you and left you His Church -- for which even the gates of hell cannot conquer!

Alleluia!

Does the Council of Florence Contradict Vatican II?

Some say the Catholic Church has changed her stance on salvation outside the Church (extra ecclesiam nulla salus: "outside the Church there is no salvation"). First, let me say that changing one's position and rephrasing one's position are not the same thing. The short reply to this objection is to simply state that the Church has rephrased her position which remains the same, or namely, extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Meaning:

If you are saved, you are saved by Christ, and if by Christ, you are saved through His Body, the Church.

I would now like to consider a more specific objection and give a more detailed response. I recently happened upon a Protestant blogger making the case that the Catholic Church has contradicted herself. Particularly, his claim was that the Catholic teachings in the Second Vatican Council and the Council of Florence are incompatible. Unfortunately, schismatic Catholics in various traditional-ist sects do not help the cause of the Church, for many of them promulgate this error as well.

Ut unum sint!

[Sigh]

Let us consider some true statements:

1. There are some sins that lead to death, others that do not
2. The ones that lead to death are mortal
3. There are certain conditions which make a sin mortal
4. Therefore, if the conditions are not met, the sin is not mortal
5. The sins of schism and heresy can be mortal (from 3)
6. If the sins do not meet certain conditions (4), they are not mortal
7. Therefore, there are some who may appear to be schismatics and heretics who do not sin unto death

Specific Objection: The Council of Florence taught that there is no salvation outside of the Church. Moreover, it declares that ALL schismatics and heretics will depart into the fires of hell. Vatican II taught that God can use Protestant ecclesial communities as an instrument of salvation. These two concepts are irreconcilable.

"I see where you are going
with this, and I like it!"

Reply 1: I say that both concepts are true. To affirm the former does not of necessity negate the later. Like any sin, it is only mortal if certain conditions are met.

Reply 2: The Fathers of the Council of Florence most certainly held to this distinction. Also, we must keep in mind that all those schismatics and heretics at the time of the Council of Florence had full knowledge as to the truth of the Catholic Church. Therefore, they met the conditions of a schismatic or heretic who was committing such sin unto death. This qualification is even implied in Super Quibusdam written by Pope Clement VI, 90 years before The Council of Florence ("all who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence").

Reply 3: Today, and at the time of the Second Vatican Council, many of those who find themselves outside the "visible Catholic Church" do so "at no fault of their own" and without "full consent", but instead were born into these communities and inculcated with a type of ignorance -- invincible even -- as to the claims of the Catholic Church.

I know. I was one of them! 

"But how can Protestant communities be "instruments of salvation" if, as Pope Leo XII said in Ubi Primum: "It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members."

Because, El Presidente...

a donkey can be an instrument of salvation while also not being an instrument of salvation. What do I mean? I mean that the Protestant communities are not "instruments of salvation" in and of themselves, but only insomuch that they still retain the graces and truth subsisting fully in the Catholic Church. Remember, Pope Benedict XVI started off his pontificate with a rousing ecumenical comment just like this.

The bottom line is that God can use whatever means He wills to draw men to His Son and into His Body, the Church. I know this makes some traditional-ist Catholics uncomfortable. However, what should be more troubling is subscribing to a view of God incompatible with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition (capital-T), the teachings of the Church, the lives of the saints, and the record of history. What I mean is that our separated brothers and sisters love Christ, and if they do not explicitly reject the Catholic Church, they can be saved. In fact, in much of the western world, "Catholics" -- Baptized, Confirmed, and Communing (though probably not Confessing) -- seem to be as invincibly ignorant of the claims of the Catholic Church as most Protestants.

So, the fact remains: If you are saved, you are saved by Christ, and if by Christ, you are saved through His Body, the Church.

extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

Click Here To Subscribe to Almost Not Catholic

DISCLAIMER: If you are reading this blog, you are probably losing the "invincible" part of your ignorance.

Click Here for a following up post!