Cardinal Arinze on Mortal Sin

I love this guy. Catholicism -- unfiltered. 

Some Thoughts About the Canon and Participation

A Fragment of The Dead Sea Scrolls

Let's place ourselves in the 1st century, and do a little thought experiment.

If...

1. There is no such thing as Sacred Tradition -- the Bible is the sole rule of faith

AND

2. The Jews had the right to canonize the Old Testament -- and they did

3. Therefore (from #1), the canon of the New Testament (not a particular book) is a tradition of men

4. If it is a tradition of men, it makes the word of God of no effect (bearing in mind a first century Jew hearing and believing the words of Christ about tradition could come to this conclusion later)

5. If #'s 2-4, then the first century Jew would be right to reject the New Testament canon

6. Therefore, there is no New Testament canon

Now, thinking like a first century Jew and a Protestant Christian, a Protestant must admit #1, #3, #4. A Protestant may not admit #2, but then would have to admit to a Catholic canon -- which they do not. Since they do not admit to either a Catholic canon or #2, they would have to vest the Reformers with the authority to close the Old Testament canon.

If they admit to #2, then they admit that there is no New Testament canon.

Option 1: No New Testament canon
Option 2: The Reformers were graced to close the Old Testament canon

Note: This is a thought experiment. Any objections, rebuttals, etc. are appreciated and should be noted in the spirit of dialog not in a condescendingly pedagogical tone that assumes this was not a thought experiment. 

Thank you. - Staff

____________________________________

Theological Aside

I notice when discussing the canon, that some Protestant views of the canon necessitate a kind of dictation theory regarding the inspiration of Scriptures. I notice this because of the resistance of the Protestant to admit to human agency, as if human agency diminishes the work of God. I find this is troubling (read the Old Testament).

I argue that Christian Scriptures are equally predicated on God's action and the author's action. In other words, Scripture is an expression of both God's logos and the author's unique logos. Through the diversity of authors, God communicates His will and plan and in so doing demonstrates His incredible power to use fragile creatures like you or I to relay the very words of God. Far from equivocal, each writer uses his unique style, experiences, and vantage to tell God's story. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, earthen vessels pour out heavenly wealth.

Did you know that Muslims reject Christian Scriptures for just this reason, and that they also reject Christ as God for the same reason? They see humanity and divinity as being incompatible. The Incarnation is scandalous. But we know that is not the Christian story...

The Participants

The Christian story is one of participation. A story where God asks Adam to garden, Noah to build a boat, and Moses to raise up his staff, all culminating in the ultimate participation: God becoming man. In this way, humanity is now forever in the God-head. So, through Christ we have been invited to participate in the Divine life of Love of the Holy Trinity. In the Holy Trinity there is no jealousy. That is why the Church being necessary for knowing the canon is completely compatible with God receiving all the glory. The Bible's description of God's jealousy was about us not giving Him all our love, not about His quantitative priority issues. He is not petty.

Instead, He invites the the Church He founded to participate with the Holy Spirit in leading the Church into all truth. Unlike the Old Testament, the spirit is in the Church not just with Her.

What is the canon, you ask?

Ask, the Church.

When you ask the Church, through her divine participation in the work of the Holy Spirit, you receive the mind of Christ who is the head of the Church.

Glory be to God!

A Thanksgiving Conversion Story

These are the images you find when
you search "Social Studies"

This is a republish from last year with some slight modifications.

Some 11 years ago, I started teaching. My first set of classes included an eleventh grade Bible class and a seventh grade "social studies" course. The phrase "social studies"-- I explained recently to a visiting priest in our parish from Oxford -- is the American way of saying "history." I think "social studies" makes it sound more scientific as if history were merely the by-product of men sitting around a fire, smoking pipes and telling stories. I personally think social studies sounds like the work of a fiction novelist where some kind of large, puppet master is staring down upon society under a microscope studying us.

All that to say, about this time 10 years ago, I began my lesson on the history of the Separatist movement that eventually culminated in the Mayflower's journey across the Atlantic. The textbook I was forced to use for this seventh grade class was put together by Bob Jones University. If you are not already familiar, Bob Jones University is an anti-Catholic, fundamentalist school. In turn, their books have no citations (fundamentalist) and make every effort to put down the Church in favor of "simple Christianity" or "Bible believers" (anti-Catholic). This chapter was no exception. In fact, I let my students tear out an entire section of one chapter because it was so blatantly anti-Catholic. Although I was by no means Catholic at the time, I knew that such rhetoric had no place in a history book, and that polemics was not in the best interest of the normal development of a young mind. So in grandiose fashion, I allowed the students to march up to the front of the class and dispose of a part of their textbook in my trash can.

From that moment forward, of course, I was epic.

Once they all sat back down and gathered themselves from the exhilarating experience of book mutilation, we looked at the chapter again and to my surprise, the author allowed for one detail to slip through the cracks:

Catholic Squanto

Squanto was saved from slavery by monks. 

By MONKS!

Facts conveniently left out:
1. A Protestant sold him into slavery
2. The Monks were Catholic
3. Squanto was Catholic

The Bob Jones University propaganda machine contributed a seed toward the conversion of Brent to Catholicism? Say, what?

I remember thinking to myself, "Self, isn't it weird that God is providentially using Catholic monks to help the establishment of the plymouth colony?"

I will confess that I did not run right out and beat the doors down of the nearest Cathedral and convert. Nope. However, what did happen in my heart was the gentle acknowledgment that God seemed to be using Catholics, and when you formerly thought of Catholicism as "dead religion" that is a baby-step worth noting.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL! GO TO MASS AND START YOUR DAY OF THANKSGIVING THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE!

(HT: Taylor Marshall)

Simplifying the Simply Simple

"Take this and eat it. This is my body."

this apologetics moment brought to you by:

Jesus Christ.
"I am the king of the universe and created the world,
so why don't you think I can do that up there?"

Going Crazy Over The Pope

Go read my post at Ignitum! 

(it is old-school, almost-not-catholic, apologetics)

What To Do About Cultural Catholics (Part II)

In a previous installment on this blog, I discussed the phenomenon that is cultural catholicism. Like being a fan of the New York Yankees, cultural catholicism guarantees that the adherent owns some kind of lucky charm, but has no idea who is actually on the team, the batting average of even one player, or what the team record is. This all translates into that awkward moment where you introduce yourself, and "the catholic" sends the message that:

Which is very frustrating. Even more frustrating then that fundamentalist troll who says:

You see, the troll, when thought about in the proper perspective, is mostly harmless. Yet there is a relationship between the former (cultural catholic) and the latter (fundamentalist troll), and it is worth noting. A Catholic who leaves the faith because of the "apologetic insights" of a fundamentalist is almost always a cultural catholic. They "come to Jesus", repenting of their abortion supporting ways, porn stash, and/or, of course, worship of Mary. They "never knew" any of it was wrong, or as his new narrative goes, "I just never found Jesus in the Catholic Church -- too much man-made stuff" (and the small group members give him a big hug followed by cake and punch).

It's good to be here, he says.

And like Zaccheaus, they climb up in the tree, and some die there. Others leave. While some make their way back home -- like me. My journey, of course, was circuitous in a multi-generational kind of way. Although it took me probably 400 years to get back home, while in the tree myself, I heard Christ's words and I came down. 

"I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against her."

If you haven't already, you should take the quiz, but either way, the point is simple: 

We must be converted.

There is no alternative. Christ built a Church, not a constitution. Politics won't solve the problem of cultural Catholicism, nor will it set straight the crooked thoughts of the fundamentalist troll. No. The absolute necessity of the new evangelization has never been more readily and obviously apparent. There is a trap, though. When we hear, "new evangelization", we generally think "proselytization". However, that is not what the Church is asking us to do. Unlike the "new proselytization", the new evangelization starts in our own hearts. It is not a foreign or even domestic mission trip. Instead, the new evangelization begins with a personal encounter with Christ, whereby we open up our entire life to Him. We can no longer just meet Him on Sunday. 

When this happens, even the dude with the hat sideways above will take notice. Notice is what we need, because over last few weeks, I think we all get the idea that our voices are mostly irrelevant. Which tells me something. It tells me that we are playing nice too much, playing politics instead of living our faith. When you live your faith, expect a response. Some will convert in the light of lived-out Truth. However, one must choose how he adjusts his eyes to the light. The history of Christianity tells us that some, when encountering The Light, lash-out, unable or unwilling to adjust to its radiance. They try to snuff it out, and for a moment or a life, it appears that they are able. 

Let me remind you:

 "I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against her."

In other words: bring it. Darwin has nothing on us, or rather we are the species that just won't go down, and there is nothing in our DNA -- at least under a microscope -- that will tell the difference. However, you can look into our blood to figure it out. You just have to look with different eyes. If you look more closely, with a different vantage, you will see what the world both misses and needs. 

Do you see it? For even in God's first iterations with man, he informed us that the life is in the blood. Yes, The Life is in the blood. 

Be converted to Christ. It is the only thing that will change the world. It can even change the hearts of cultural catholics and fundamentalists. 

What Happens When Contraception Fails...

...and the back up plan fails.

Particularly pay attention to 3:50 and thereafter. 

Lord, Have Mercy On Us.