Tag Archives: Jesus

Apostle to the Apostles

23 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Catholic Tradition, Early Church, Easter, Faith

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

This happened to catch my eye over at Father Z’s. While in my tradition we don’t do Saints like the Catholics do, we do respect the stalwart in faith who have gone before us. Amongst them is Mary Magdalene, the first witness of the Risen Christ, and her Feast day was yesterday. That is why she is sometimes called the Apostle to the Apostles, Christ himself charged her with going and telling the apostles that He was risen.

Well, I gather some think that the Church has rather shortchanged her and that her reputation has been sullied. Maybe so, not my department, but I keep in mind what Jessica wrote long ago about her on NEO, my blog. It was this:

Under Jewish Law the testimony of a woman was no testimony at all. The first witness to the Risen Lord was a woman – Mary Magdalen. She was tearful. There she was, come to the tomb to anoint Him, and there was the stone moved. Her mind went where most of our minds would have gone – someone had taken Him away. That great stone had not moved itself, and dead bodies don’t walk out of tombs. The grave-clothes were bundled up and there was no trace of Jesus. Hard to imagine her feelings at the point. Only two days earlier her world had fallen apart. The man whose feet she had anointed and whom she had followed so loyally had been taken, tortured and then crucified. She knew that; she’d been there (which was more than could be said for most of those Apostles). It was over. All that remained was for her to do a final duty to the corpse. But even that was to be denied her. They had taken her Lord away.

She ran back to where the disciples were and told Peter the horrible news. Typically Peter, he ran to the tomb, and equally typically was outpaced by the younger John. But John stood at the entrance, and when Peter arrived he it was who, impulsive and brave as ever, went inside to see that the tomb was, indeed, as empty as Mary had said. The men went back home, no doubt to tell the others; Mary, as is the way of women, wanted to stay there a moment longer, perhaps to gather her thoughts, perhaps to mourn a moment alone.

She looked into the tomb again, only to be met by the most amazing sight – two angels asking her why she wept. The answer she gave echoes down the ages:  “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.” As she turned away she saw a stranger, whom she took to be the gardener and asked where Jesus was. Then the man spoke – just one word, one word which shattered the world as she had known it and which echoes down the ages, even to the end of all things. ‘Mary’ was that word, the first from the lips of the Resurrected Lord. However much her tears had blinded her, that voice was clearly unmistakable: “Rabboni!” She said. Teacher, teacher, that was what she called Him. She went to cling to Him and He said: ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’  He bade her to go and tell the others what she had seen.

The testimony of a woman was no testimony in Jewish Law, and yet it was to a woman that the Risen Lord first came. He had broken the bonds of death, He had conquered the power of death and of Satan, the hold of sin on mankind was broken; and these things He entrusted to the power of one who in Jewish Law could offer no testimony at all.

She was the first. Let us love and honour her for that this Easter morning: ‘He is Risen! He is Risen Indeed!’

And there, on Easter morning itself, our Lord made his statement on the equality of women. We would do well to note that he made no case for their superiority, as so many these days seem to think, he made the case that women are valuable, and trustworthy, in their own right, which role is not the same as men but is complementary and equal to men.

In the Tridentine Missal, the Epistle is this (from the Song of Songs)

I will rise, and will go about the city: in the streets and the broad ways I will seek him whom my soul loveth: I sought him, and I found him not. (quaesivi illum et non inveni.) The watchmen who keep the city, found me: Have you seen him, whom my soul loveth? When I had a little passed by them, I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him: and I will not let him go …

Would that we all (or any of us) were that faithful to the Lord.

Post-Vatican II Christ Centered Ethics

09 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 64 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

not-sure-clipart-1

Recently, I have decided to peruse papers submitted on academia.edu on different Christian topics and post brief commentaries on our blog for discussion purposes. After taking a brief look at different papers, the title “Post Vatican II Christ-Centered Ethical Theology” really lept out at me. And perhaps, a bit of the reason is that I thought it would stir the pot a bit with Scoop—So, I couldn’t help myself.

The author of the paper is a Jesuit by the name Dr. Jean-Marie Hyacinthe Quenum. He begins his introduction quite interesting by claiming:

Christian moral theology as an academic discipline presupposes the self-actualization of Christian mystery in the community of faith called the Church. Christian moral theology draws its methodology and principles from the followers of Jesus Christ worshiping the Holy Trinity and making the fundamental option to live as recreated children of God under the process of God’s justification and sanctification in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Honestly,  I don’t really understand what idea Quenum is trying to convey in the first sentence. I would have to ask what specifically he means by Christian mystery in this statement, i.e. The Trinity, Body of Christ, Passion, sanctifying grace? It’s true that while we understand good action through the revelation of Christ’s actions and teachings in the Gospels; it doesn’t appear to follow Catholic theology of Grace, Justification, and predestination. However, when Quenum writes, “making the fundamental option to live as recreated children of God under the process of God’s justification and sanctification in Christ through the Holy Spirit.” Perhaps, it’s clarity that is missing in his state where he is speaking of our cooperation with the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit through the practice of virtues that allows one to sustain and preserve in grace. Of course, it is through prayer, practicing the sacraments, and works of mercy where God continues to infuse within our souls His graces to live a life of holiness; to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.

The understanding of grace and its role it plays in our actions, being the goodness of God, is formed from an understanding of classical orthodox understanding founded in the Augustinian and Thomistic traditions. As I would not be surprised if Quenum, being a Jesuit, being formed in the Molinist school of radical free will with God’s middle knowledge merely knowing our receptiveness to His grace, this may have led to these developments in Post-Vatican II thinking.

Quenum writes, “In Post-Vatican II Church Christian moral theology has become in university context a field of Christian ethics dealing with Christian living with real people in a real world of secularized societies. Appropriately called theological ethics, Christian moral theology has become an inspiring discipline, based on Scripture, reason, character formation, commitment to the reign of God, common good, virtues, social responsibility and the goal to become better people of God after the last Adam, Jesus Christ. “

 Again, this begs the question, how is this idea to be played out with the traditional understanding of Catholic theology with grace and predestination? Quenum goes on, “how Christians in their intentions to become Christ-like manifest their fundamental relation to the Trinitarian God creator, savior and transformer of the world by leading a virtuous life of moral responsibility and goodness.

 I am concerned with what he means by ‘intention’ our intention is to accept the grace of God by our free will; however, as God is creator, his grace actualizes our souls so the good that we do in the world comes from God. Our good actions are not our own, but rather our action within the Thomistic and Augustinian understanding of grace is to consent to the grace of God, a acquire an interior freedom that allows our heart to rest.

Quenum does speak later on in the paper about the role of prayer and the Holy Spirit. He says, “It allows the disciple of Jesus Christ to make daily decisions by seeking God’s heart. Prayer consists in listening God’s Word in faith (Hebrew 4: 2).  By building human life on the rock of God’s Word, the disciple of Jesus Christ is open to the agenda of God. The human heart is the deepest part of the human person experiencing the creative presence of the Trinitarian God. From the human heart purified by the presence of the Trinitarian God flows the moral transformation of the person called to discipleship by Christ and anointed by his Spirit.”

The statement on prayer could be okay or worrisome depending on where one places the stresses on the action of the person. Prayer is in many ways initiated by God through grace. We feel a call to it, in effect, we could make decisions to cooperate with God’s call to prayer, part of this is building the habit of prayer in our lives. However, if by the last statement he makes in this paragraph that God transforms us by his grace then the statement becomes more on par. So, again, it may be a clarity issue.

Finally, Quenum’s statement on the Holy Spirit appears to clarify my concerns early on in his paper. He writes:

The Holy Spirit who prays in the human person makes the voice of Christ heard and obeyed. The Holy Spirit guides the believer in the quest of moral transformation. Christian moral transformation requires friendship with Jesus Christ who helps the disciple to appropriate and to assimilate his life, passion, death and resurrection through the work of regeneration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit as comforter empowers the believer for a deeper relationship with the Trinitarian God that brings the fruits of a blessed life.

 Naturally, I find little issues with this paragraph with my stress on grace. The Holy Spirit is what drives our desire to have a relationship with Jesus Christ and to live a life more like his that we read in the Gospels.

Quenum does have some good points about the challenges of Christian ethics in our modern world. He does articulate well that our modern societies have regressed psychological toward pagan hedonism. He writes, “The logic of desire explored by depth psychology has placed pleasure and comfort at the pinnacle of human fulfilment. To say “no” to a desire is to repress it for a law that brings frustration, dissatisfaction and depression. A person led by the logic of desire rejects rules, regulations and laws.”

I do listen to Bishop Robert Barron’s podcast from time to time. Barron does often use an interesting analogy when it comes to sports with our modern ethics. He explains that if you want to hit a baseball or a golf ball well, you have to use certain techniques that have been tried over a period of time and perfected to do those skills well. Naturally, no one objects usually and says I prefer to hit the golf ball my own way, of course, this is because they wish to hit the ball. What we’ve failed to communicate in our modern societies is that to live life well then we do have to live by some rules. These rules are not to repress you, but rather, like cleanly hitting a golf ball, to give you interior freedom to live your life well.

Quenum explains the development of  Post-Vatican II ethics writing:

 “Post-Vatican II theological ethics has the originality of being non- judgmental. It aims at showing God’s mercy and acceptance toward those who have not yet understood the path of salvation brought by Jesus Christ. It provides supportive and brotherly community for those who are sincerely wrong. These people are no longer blamed but accompanied by wise disciples of Jesus Christ in pastoral ministry.  

 In a pluralistic world post-Vatican II theological ethics is open to dialogue which is today the fruitful method of being with others in respectful way. Dialogue in a world of competing and conflicting values makes Christian vulnerable, modest and ready to learn from others.

 I think it’s fair toask,, Do these ‘ethics’ actually work?  On the one hand, the idea of mercy is an idea that conveys the need for it. The need for mercy is the result of sin. In the post-Vatican II theology, this idea hasn’t been conveyed with much success. If we’re sticking to the golfing analogy, it would similar to telling someone who is swinging the club poorly, “it’s okay, I know you didn’t hit the ball, but go ahead swing the club again and see if you can hit it.” If we do not spend the time to explain what needs to be corrected, how can it be expected that a correction will be made?

I will attempt to answer these question with parts of Quenum conclusion:

Fifty years after Vatican II the pilgrim people of God is thinking differently moral life. The splendor of the truth is in the person of Jesus Christ inviting human beings to share the perfect goodness of the Trinitarian God through a virtuous life of love.

 Moral life is no longer about forbidden behaviors and acts which are intrinsically evil. Moral life flows from the human person whose heart is purified by the Gospel message of Jesus Christ and who makes the fundamental option to share the Trinitarian God’s values in the body of Christ led by the Holy Spirit in the renewed family of the Father.

…

Doing Trinitarian theological ethics implies the rejection of moralism, legalism and authoritarianism for a better approach of the human person as a discerning agent inspired by the Gospel that does Justice, Peace and fellowship in the redeemed world.

 Again, I’m not entirely clear about his concluding remarks. At times in the paper, I think he admits that post-Vatican II doesn’t seem to be working, as Christian morality seems to be evaporating. However, it does somewhat appear that his focus on Trinitarian theological ethics because it relies on being led by the grace through the Holy Spirit rejects legalism, but does this imply that any form of correction is legalism? Perhaps, we merely need faith in the grace of the Holy Spirit to transform the lives. It appears this type of theological ethics is similar to a lot of the ‘accompaniment’ ‘pastoral care’ type theology that comes from clerical media personalities.

Overall the text seems vague to me. It has some theology that does make sense in it, but at times the clarity is lacking,

Good Friday meditation

19 Friday Apr 2019

Posted by in Easter, Lent

≈ Comments Off on Good Friday meditation

Tags

, , , ,

As I said on my blog earlier this week, Eastertide is one of those times when I think of absent friends and family, whyever they are absent. One of the people I miss, of course, is Jessica, the founder of this blog. Some things are not in our hands, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t remember what we have learned from them. Back in 2013, Jessica wrote a meditation on Good Friday for NEO that I found very moving. Some of you may not have seen it, and reading it again will hurt none of us, so here it is. [Neo]

We call it ‘Good Friday’. The altar in my church is stripped bare, and the crucifix is covered, and we leave with the smoke from the extinguished candles filling the gloom of an English spring afternoon; with temperatures stuck next to freezing, the shivers could have a number of causes; but meditating on the Passion of Our Lord is enough.  The sense of sorrow is an echo of that first Friday at Calvary, and it is hard to know, at that moment what is ‘good’ about it.

But when we stop in prayer and think, we can see precisely what is good.  It is the day on which all our sins are loaded on the Lamb of God, when He takes upon His shoulders your sins and mine. What wonder is this? What have we done to be so rewarded? How can this be? What wondrous love is this? Good? Yes, the best news mankind ever had or ever will have. Whatever confessional allegiances divide us, I like to feel on this day of all days, the Cross of Christ unites us.

I leave it to all the clever men to explain what in my heart I know is simple. Christ loves me. He loves us all. He did what He did, He suffered what He suffered willingly. He knew if would be terrible, and He would have preferred it if it had been otherwise; but that makes it all the more precious.

The American expression ‘when the rubber hits the road’ comes to mind. This is where our salvation was earned, and not by us. With every nail that was hammered in, as with every stripe He bore for us, we are being saved. If we find those sufferings horrible, we should know that is how God finds our sins; God did something about it – what are we doing?

It was through the breaking of that body on the Cross, and the spilling of that blood that we see what He meant on the evening of the Last Supper. His Body was broken for us; His blood spilled for us. Some of us believe that at the Eucharist we receive His Body and Blood as He said; others that it is in memory of Him. Well, Good Friday is no time to rehearse what divides us – yet more stripes we apply to His back. It is a time for prayer and contemplation.

Mine is that for all of us, the Spirit of Christ may be with us this Easter, and that we may know Him as Lord, and worship Him and be thankful for what He has done for us. What did we do to earn it? Nothing. What can we do to be worthy of it? Just heed His call to repent and follow Him in belief that He is the Christ.

In the shadow of the Cross we kneel and pray and give thanks – we are redeemed through His suffering. As the ancient hymn has it, let all mortal flesh keep silent. He has saved us. It is Good Friday – be sad and yet rejoice.

Bishop Paprocki calls for a lay investigator and committee of primarily​ the laity to stop clergy​ sexual misconduct.

16 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 26 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Bishop Paprocki does call for this investigator and committee to be led by the laity, but as he says his view is for those names to be sent to the Pope for the removal of Bishops, it is still within this culture of clericalism that the those in the Church who call for action still operate with the Church and outside of the secular law. It stops short of what absolutely needs to be done; the investigator and committee need to provide names and evidence to the secular judicial system to arrest, to try, and to send to prison any citizen, whether it be a member of the clergy, for breaking both secular and divine laws.

I urge every Catholic to demand a different approach from the leadership of the Church. And let’s face it, the only power the laity has is the power of the purse. So, if the USCCB is still unwillingly to do what is needed, and it still appears to be the case, do not give one penny to any parish or diocese. Donate your funds to self-sufficient apostalates instead. It has to be a complete and utter shock to the Bishops that we will take no more.

Demand it! Stop posting normal Catholic posts, actually DO something, write a letter, stop your offerings, request meetings with priests and bishops. If you hear something that’s wrong in a meeting or even a homily–say something!

“A voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths. ” Mk 1:3

Free Will & Divine Sovereignty: A Dialogue

12 Sunday Aug 2018

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 34 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

ƒ*Below is a combination of two conversations that I’ve had with reformed Christians on the debate between Free Will and Divine Sovereignty. I listened to a podcast where the Professor said he often had his students construct dialogues. I liked the idea; most of this is not based on my imagination but actual conversations, as my first attempt. The bulk of the text is based from one reformed Christian ideas; however, many of his points I thought were weak, so I did tweak them a bit with another reformed Christian’s comments of a debate I’ve had almost a year ago. However, in both cases, it appears that when presented with either proof texts and philosophy they both relied on a sort of personal revelation conclusion. I still think the arguments are weak but I surmise it’s not due to reformed Christians not having good arguments. The two that I had conversations with seemed to want to rely on short deflective statements rather than a development of their position. Again, in searching for truth, I’d ask for any reformed Christian who reads this to comment and present their arguments for dialogue. There are many authors and commenters on AATW and it can be a good experience to develop our ideas. Also, note, the conversations at the behest of the reformed Christians avoided philosophy so topics like determinism were never brought into the conversation.*

Vinnie: Free will is a myth. It’s a philosophical concept that has nothing to do with theology. The concept of Free will is a contradiction of God’s Divine authority based on the idea that the individual’s will is outside the authority of God’s word.

Tomas: I believe you’ve mistaken the permeance of God’s omnipotence and the idea of what constitutes free will.

Vinnie: God is in control of every aspect of our lives. God is the creator; he sustains us and everything in His dominion. Why do you make petitionary prayers for a new job or a promotion, good health, or to have a safe trip unless God is completely sovereign over all things?

Tomas: Much of what you say is true, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. Of course, prayers are for our own good whether we receive what we’ve asked for or not, it’s purpose to build our habits of virtue through God’s grace. For we cannot pray without the Spirit.  I suppose I need to ask, “Do you believe the Bible is the word of God?”

Vinnie: Of course! And the scripture shows that Free Will is a myth! Genesis 50:20!

Tomas: Oh yes, the intention of harm being a part of God’s plan for the greater good. Naturally, I have to ask why does the passage necessarily support God’s Divine Sovereignty instead of humanity’s free will? You believe God to be supremely in control and yet you’re willing to put constraints on His power by declaring that because He has Divine sovereignty.

Vinnie: I understand your point and I agree that there are certain ideas within Christianity that don’t make a lot of sense if God is sovereign. Nonetheless, I believe He is.

Tomas: Interesting, so you’re admitting to rejecting observations within your own ability to reason?

Vinnie: Things can be logically proven and still be wrong.

Tomas: Careful down that rabbit hole, The ole’ atheist quip, to argue against a concept of free will one must have a sort of prior knowledge of actions being a free choice of the will. A prior knowledge acts as a sort of proof by the definition itself and admits to the existence of free will by your own argument against it.

Vinnie: This is a prime example of why philosophers make poor theologians. I don’t accept your point, because I believe God is in control, and God has complete freedom. So there is free will, but it’s God’s freedom and not ours. As creatures under God’s sovereign control, we are not free in relation to God’s will.

Tomas: And yet you’re not presenting any substantial proofs for your positive claims here.

Vinnie: To simply state, Reformed theology gives theological answers to theological questions in the context of the Reformed and Covenantal tradition in which it is presented. It really doesn’t advance the argument to erect straw men just to burn them down…

Tomas: Well, you’d have to show how I’ve erected a straw man on your position, which again you provide no proofs for such a claim. Furthermore, I can only surmise that your proofs would be weak arguments that Free Will doesn’t exist. In fact, what you do do is create a tautological argument by repeating words “reformed” and “theology” without implying anything of substance. Furthermore, as you indicate that only true theology can be done by doing theology—see the Tautology there?—you’ve erected a sort of Every True Scotsmen fallacy, as your saying, “Every true theologian uses theology, not philosophy.” I will use both philosophy and scripture as proof for the existence of the Free Will.

Vinnie: …
Thomas: If free will is a myth, it contradicts the theological doctrine of Original Sin and that of an omnibenevolent God. Naturally, if God creates and sustains all, including all of humanity’s will, then wills a programmed fall from grace; doesn’t give grace sufficient for all to be saved then he ultimately would be responsible for all subsequent evil actions made by humanity. Of course, in such a scenario, a judgment would be made on some who have no opportunity to cooperate with His grace–reprobate–to atone for sins they could not freely choose not to commit. As these concepts contradict with the essence of Divine Justice one cannot articulate the Augustinian view of the elect as double predestination because Augustine, in his Confessions book 7, explains quite clearly that humanity is solely responsible for evil, as it has no substance, as all of God’s creations share in his goodness and that evil is a privation of said goodness.

Furthermore, God gives humanity, government, the authority in scripture to punish criminals–Romans 13: 3-4. To give authority to punish criminals who are not responsible for their actions would be intrinsically disordered within the frameworks of divine justice. The Theologian makes the argument that the judgment of any action would be illogical if free does not exist unless of course, one argues that society’s response is a predetermined one.

Vinnie: if God has free will and man has free will, if the two come into conflict God’s free will wins. It’s called the Sovereignty of God…

Tomas: Okay, now take that to its conclusion. No Free Will means God is responsible for Adam’s fall. Therefore, it would contradict the need for atonement as Adam could not create a free act of disobedience against God, which consequently renders Christ’s ransom of our sins meaningless. So, let’s make this clear so a straw man argument cannot be claimed. if God’s will wins out, there’s no need for atonement of sins that one did not freely choose on their own. No need for atonement, no need for Christ. You’ve rendered Christianity as needless.

Vinnie: As I said, if God is truly sovereign (i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent) then this creates problems for the Christian worldview, which you rightly point out. Nevertheless, I believe that God is Sovereign because of the Divine revelation of scripture.

Tomas: So let’s move into scripture and let’s not forget the whole context of Hebrews 10:26-29:

26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Vinnie: The context in reformed theology expressed by James White is that “he was sanctified” means Christ. Your argument is not with me, but it seems at minimum you fallen into Semi-Pelagian heresy.”

Tomas: Shall we take the sentence to a linguist to graph the sentence? I would presume that the vast majority will choose the man as the one who was sanctified by Christ being God would have no need for sanctification. The heresy of Semi-Pelagianism is starting with Free Will without God’s grace. Of course, this isn’t the position I’m claiming to hold. Now, your statement is a prime example of a straw man fallacy, so let me explain why…

God’s grace gives each person sufficient grace to choose Him. It begins with Him but then we’re allowed by God, who is sovereign, to cooperate with Him. After this initial grace, we can certainly pray, choose to do his will through his Church; however, this isn’t a radical separation from God’s will. As God is existence, our will’s do not function outside of God. By God’s omnipotence, he can certainly will us to have free will and still operate within his Divine Providence. So, when we pray, help others as Christ commands in Mt. 25, or fast as Christ mentions in Mt. 5, etc. God continues to give us perseverant grace to actualize our will through His Grace to order our will toward His own. The will isn’t radically free but formed through the habits of virtue and vice. Again Hebrews 10:26-29 illustrates this by acknowledging those who are sanctified can fall from God’s grace.

Vinnie: It’s not that I’m mildly impressed with your ability to move effortlessly conflating one category with another but at some point to engage in such novelties is unproductive. I believe God is Divinely Sovereign. Good day.

 

The Origin of the debate on Purgatory between Catholics and Orthodox

08 Sunday Jul 2018

Posted by in Catholic Tradition, Faith

≈ 41 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

dante700

I’ve recently enjoyed a few of Craig Truglia’s post on the debate of purgatory between Catholics and Orthodox on his blog Orthodox Christian Theology. One of the issues that bugs me is when someone attempts to tell me what I actually believe in accords with my faith. For example, when an evangelical attempts to tell me that Catholics worship Mary—what dumbfounds me is that people who worship gods don’t deny worshiping those gods!

As I’ve read Craig’s post on purgatory, I’ve felt at times he’s doing something of the nature of telling me what my faith’s beliefs are in regards to purgatory.

Craig writes, “Augustine’s Purgatory is clearly different. The fire, which he speculates and admits is possibly “doubtful,” burns the dross of our passions that was not worn off by our repentance in our worldly lives “in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish.” Augustine viewed the process as “quick.” As we shall see in Parts II and III, this has much more in common with the modern Orthodox elucidation of what happens after we die than the dominant Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.”

The strange thing is that my understanding of purgatory is actually very similar to what he presents as Augustine’s viewpoint. Of course, no surprise to the many readers on AATW, I’ve got an Augustinian soft spot, so it’s no surprise I would agree right? However, it doesn’t appear that I’m the only Catholic who has this notion on the topic of purgatory. In 2011, Pope Benedict XVI in a general audience on the topic of purgatory wrote:

“Catherine’s thought on purgatory, for which she is particularly well known, is summed up in the last two parts of the book mentioned above: The Treatise on purgatory and the Dialogues between the body and the soul. It is important to note that Catherine, in her mystical experience, never received specific revelations on purgatory or on the souls being purified there. Yet, in the writings inspired by our Saint, purgatory is a central element and the description of it has characteristics that were original in her time. 

The first original passage concerns the “place” of the purification of souls. In her day it was depicted mainly using images linked to space: a certain space was conceived of in which purgatory was supposed to be located. 

Catherine, however, did not see purgatory as a scene in the bowels of the earth: for her it is not an exterior but rather an interior fire. This is purgatory: an inner fire.”

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20110112.html

It’s interesting that when I look at more traditional Catholic websites about the above quote, they charge the Pope with a development of modernism, but does the history of purgatory hold out? The earliest known debate on the topic of purgatory between East and West took place in 1230 A.D. between a Franciscan friar and a Greek Bishop Bardanes of Corfer. In the debate it appears that the Greek Bishop misunderstood the Franciscan’s explanation on “the fire” point of purgatory and connected it to an irrational fear of universalism from Origenism, not realizing a proper distinction between the two concepts.

In fact, as evidence to indicate that the above statement by Pope Benedict XVI is not a development, in 1267 Pope Clement IV issued a profession of faith which was adopted in 1274 at Lyons II. The formula, as explained by Fr. Aidan Nichols:

So far as Purgatory is concerned, the ‘Clementine formula’ abstains from any reference to fire, though it does use the term “purgatorial”, in its Greek form. Those who die in charity, truly repentant but without as yet making satisfaction for their sins, whether commission or omission, by worthy fruits of repentance, will, so the formula maintains,  be purged after death, poenis purgatoriis seu cathartiis, “by purifying or cathartic pains.”[1]

It’s interesting to note that at the start of Craig’s initial post of his series, I asked him whether he knew that if Dante’s work influenced the more physical imagery of purgatory in the middle ages. Now, after examining the papal profession of faith in the 13thcentury, as well as noting that the first use of the word “purgatorium” occurs in the writings of Hildebert of Lavardin dating anywhere from 1056-1135 A.D.; it appears one can reason that either Dante’s work in the 14thcentury either influenced the cultural perception or the cultural perception of that particular time period influenced him. [2] However, the Augustinian viewpoint was still within the frameworks of Pope Clement IV profession of faith.

Further Reflections on the topic may be needed, such as the development of the sacrament of Confession in regards to the penance preceding absolution to the development of it in the future. However, I believe the topic needed a better examination of the development of theology within a historical timeline.

[1]Aidan Nichols O.P., Rome and the Eastern Churches, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 293.

[2]Ibid, 295.

The Necessity of God’s Revelation for Salvation

01 Friday Jun 2018

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 21 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

th

I answer that, It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed God, besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee (Isa. 66:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man’s whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that, besides philosophical science built up by reason there should be a sacred science learned through revelation

The excerpt from St. Thomas Aquinas drives home the idea that faith in God is a gift from him. Indeed, without revelation, we could surmise by our reason that beings we observe in the world that are created are contingent on a prior being. However, we wouldn’t know anything more about God by coming to this conclusion. Furthermore, we cannot expect that other folks in the world who do not believe in God to be able to debate and discuss various parts of the Scripture without a consensus on the existence of God.

I recently heard that Thomas Merton once wrote that the demon of the current age is noise. I wonder that if our technological age’s noise, the speed of life, and constant attention stimulants has led to the drowning out of God’s grace. I suppose God’s grace is greater than all of these obstacles, but like an addict, I wonder if it doesn’t distort and twist our will. If God’s revelation is necessary for our Salvation, how can we hope that our fellow neighbors will take the time to hear the call? Or has the gate narrowed? 

 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.).

How to Read Scripture?

29 Tuesday May 2018

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 28 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

fe8cdbb89627413782a66ccbe9988e70

The (in)famous reader and contributor of AATW Bosco always challenges both Catholic and mainline Protestants faiths reliance on tradition. Perhaps, he will not object so much to this particular post. The participates here at this blog who know my own personal theology probably would not argue when I say it is rooted in an understanding of Christ’s Priestly Prayer and the unity of Christianity and thought–even if they’d say it’s misguided! The strong point of this particular blog has always been its discussion, so I hope with introducing small passages for discussion instead of long theological treatises, we foster and rebuild what was once so great here.

Plus, I may find enough time in my day to contribute these smaller discussions.

So, again, taking a look at some known works within the frameworks of the Catholic faith, I stumbled upon The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis’ thoughts on reading scripture. Naturally, the passage reminds me of Pope Benedict XVI’s emphasis to do one’s theology on one’s knees, the idea brought forth countless times here at this blog that Peter wasn’t a scholar but a fisherman or that St. Paul was a mere tent maker. Kempis writes, “Our curiosity often impedes our reading of the Scriptures, when we wish to understand and mull over what we ought simply to read and pass by,” I wonder if the wisdom here is to look at scripture and rather than spend so much time arguing about theological concepts of justification rather note that we’re saved through Christ, repent from sin as the scriptures explain what is sin, and do good to our neighbors.

Let us all pray for humility:

TRUTH, not eloquence, is to be sought in reading the Holy Scriptures; and every part must be read in the spirit in which it was written. For in the Scriptures we ought to seek profit rather than polished diction.

Likewise we ought to read simple and devout books as willingly as learned and profound ones. We ought not to be swayed by the authority of the writer, whether he be a great literary light or an insignificant person, but by the love of simple truth. We ought not to ask who is speaking, but mark what is said. Men pass away, but the truth of the Lord remains forever. God speaks to us in many ways without regard for persons.

Our curiosity often impedes our reading of the Scriptures, when we wish to understand and mull over what we ought simply to read and pass by.

If you would profit from it, therefore, read with humility, simplicity, and faith, and never seek a reputation for being learned. Seek willingly and listen attentively to the words of the saints; do not be displeased with the sayings of the ancients, for they were not made without purpose.

 Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1996), 10.