Sacramental Worldview: Magic?

The Archangel Raphael, on God's orders, uses occult knowledge to help Tobias

A Calvinist aquaintance of mine recently said that “God can appoint whatever means He chooses for communicating His will. The urim and thummim were God-ordained by the written word, which would *de facto* preclude them from the realm of magic.”  This was after he was criticiing the Harry Potter, Narnia and Lord of the Rings books as horribly anti-Christian, and called the Catholic Mass “witchcraft” in a Biblical sense.

So I just though I’d post some Scriptural passages in regards to “magic” in the Scripture, leaving out the abundant examples of approved divination:

“Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.” (James 5:14-15)

“And going forth they preached that men should do penance: And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.” (Mark 6:12-13)

“‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21–23)

“And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God. But they going forth preached every where: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.” (Mark 16:17-20, phah to historical-critical method)

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” (John 14:10-14)

Justification: Where’s the Beef?

“For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).

“Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbor the whole of the Law is present and carried out. Thus in communion with Christ, in a faith that creates charity, the entire Law is fulfilled. We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love. We shall see the same thing in the Gospel next Sunday, the Solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What he asks is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you give me food to eat when I was hungry, did you clothe me when I was naked? And thus justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel we can almost say: love alone, charity alone. But there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St Paul. It is the same vision, according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the fulfillment of communion with Christ. Thus, we are just by being united with him and in no other way.

“At the end, we can only pray the Lord that he help us to believe; really believe. Believing thus becomes life, unity with Christ, the transformation of our life. And thus, transformed by his love, by the love of God and neighbor, we can truly be just in God’s eyes.”  – Benedict XVI

Justification is the classical issue of the Reformation, and much ink and blood has been spilled over what the correct doctrine is, really.  Some will accuse the Council of Trent of “anathamizing the Gospel”, but a careful reading of Pope Benedict’s statement above and the Councils decree shows that they are the same as that espoused in the Bible.  Paul tells us in Romans and Galatians that Justification comes through faith rather than the works of the Law, but James tells us in his epistle that “faith without works is dead” and that “man is justified by works, and not by faith alone”.  Jesus himself, in the parable of the sheep and the goats, seems to lay the works of love springing from true faith as a standard for our justification before God, the standard that the Holy Father echoes in the above quote.  Once you peel away 500-year old rhetoric, the truth remains: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself.” (Luke 10:27)

ADDENDUM FROM MY FACEBOOK PAGE:

My friend Kevin asks:  “So you agree that doing good works does not get you into heaven?”

I respond:

It is not a strict dichotomy of either faith or works, because “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:20). It is a both/and, a favorite Catholic theology catchphrase. Brownie points will not earn salvation, but “the devils also believe and tremble” (James 2:19). One cannot exist authentically without the other.

“Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

“Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?’ And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

“Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

“And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.”   (Matthew 7: 21-27)

Whence “Neo-Catholic”?

The Neo-Pope

This is in response to a discussion on Mark Shea’s blog, regarding the term “Neo-Catholic”, apparently meaning  by the definition of the poster DM,  ”A Catholic whose enthusiasms and opinions are mostly defined by John Paul II’s papacy.”

This is what I have seen the term used to mean in actual conversations with my Traditionalist friends, it is kind of  a cartoonishly simplistic take on the opinions of those who are orthodox yet not full-blown Traditionalists in their devotional life.  As a Traditionalist-leaning former Protestant (product of Benedict XVI’s papacy rather than JPII, still Chrismy fresh!), I find myself hemming and hawing over these points, “yes, well, sort of…”.  I’ll take them one at a time, for clarity’s sake:

“1) The Second Vatican Council was a positively good thing.  Its documents are “marching orders for the new millennium”. The pastoral strategy given by Gaudium et Spes is authoritative and, more importantly, correct.  The problems in the Church following the council are not the fault of the conciliar documents themselves, but can be blamed on misinterpretation, misimplementation, or ignorance of them. “

Well, yes.  Many problems that have followed from the Council actually contradict the conciliar teachings directly.  This is well documented.  Though I will say that the Council’s teachings, even when not wrong, did lend themselves to misinterpretation and misapplication.  This is true of all the Ecumenical Councils, actually.  They all caused as many problems as they solved, if not more.  I have come to the conclusion that if there hadn’t been a VII, the past 50 years very well could have been bumpier.  I trust the movement of the Holy Spirit that way.

“`2) The Bugninine liturgical reform was a positively good thing. The problems following the promulgation of the new Mas are not the fault of the content, form or circumstrances of origin of the new Mass itself, but can be blamed on liturgical abuse at the diocesan and parochial level.  When celebrated reverently, there is “nothing illegitemate or doctrinally inexact” about the reformed liturgy.”

Well,  I have problems with some of the directions taken with Paul VI Mass, but it is not *illegitimate* as it is a valid Mass promulgated by the Church.  I’d cut the three Euphoras aside from the traditional Roman Canon, among other niggling liturgical tidbits.  I think the transition was ill-advised and poorly handled.  But again, many of the problematic practices of the reform era were indeed not part of the new standards, but people going beyond the rubrics and staying there.  Partly, this is due to the aforementioned poor handling of the changes, but part of it is that there were some serious problems with formation within the Church in the generation leading up to the Council.

“3) The ecclesiastical tradition of the Church has no permanment objective content. All “little T” traditions can and should be modified according to perceived pastoral or evangelical expediency.”

This is an overstatement and misinterpretation of Congar’s “Meaning of Tradition” and the position taken by the Magesterium with regards to “little t” traditions.  The distinction is a true one, though I would say that the past 50 years show that messing with the “little t” can be very dangerous and ill-advised.  But there is a truth that the Church is objectively not the same with regards to these “little t” practices in 1st century Rome, 7th century Lebonon, 19th century France and 21st century Kenya.  It just isn’t.  The issue that was taken up by Congar and VII was that some of the “traditional” practices were only 100 years old, and were in danger of being confused with the Deposit of Faith.  Their mistake was in assuming that they could change the traditions of the Faithful by Episcopal fiat, an action that is obviously folly in retrospect.  In addition, it is dangerous to presume to know where the line between “little t” and “Big T” lies.  This is a complex issue, that doesn’t lend itself to a simplification with “Traditionalists” on one side and “Neo-Catholics” on the other.

4) The pope can and should positivistically innovate in matters of liturgy and devotion.

Well, I don’t much care for Papal fiat in these matters, but this goes back to St. Gregory the Great, St. Gregory VII, St. Pius V, etc.  The Tridentine Mass itself represents a number of liturgical and devotional innovations coming from the Pope and an Ecumenical Council, perhaps moreso than that of Paul VI following Vatican II.

5) Ecumenism is a positively good thing and a “solemn and binding duty” on all believers.

Well, it was said by a Council of the Church, so who am I to disagree?  St. Peter does tell us to be always ready with an answer.

6) Modern philosophical (e.g. phenomenology), artistic, and cultural (e.g. World Youth Day) forms can and should be used as vehicles for the Gospel, and there is nothing intrinsically and qualitatively superior about the forms used by the Church in the past (e.g. Thomism, Gothic architecture).

Are you saying that modern forms cannot or should not be used to advance the Gospel?  I think that traditional artistic forms are vastly superior, for a number of reasons I won’t go into here, but is it a zero-sum game where modern culture is of no potential value?

7) The 1992 Catechism is a “sure guide” to the faith, and can be considered a final authority on any matter it addresses.

I don’t know anyone who would claim the Catechism (or any other Catechism, really) as a “final authority”.  It’s pretty through and useful, however.

8) Disagreement with the above statements puts a Catholic in danger of “private judgment”, “being more Catholic than the pope” or “Protestant mentality”.

Well, when one disagrees with the Pope because he isn’t hewing to tradition, it is an understandable charge, isn’t it?  I don’t think it is a fair charge, but it follows naturally from the positions taken.  I think there is much room to disagree with what’s been going on for the past 50 years, and with Popes and their actions, without being “Protestant”.  The line is crossed by people such as the SSPX, when they declare the Church apostate.  And there lies the charge of “Rad-Trad”.

“I don’t think that any part of that is inaccurate of unfair, and apologize if it is.”

I think you could use some nuance in your statements, and a few (namely number 3) cross the line into parody, but a fair enough list.

And, as usual, I ask that anyone who objects to the term “neo-Catholic” suggest a different name for the set of opinions and enthusiasms I have just described.  (Refusing to call it anything other  than “Catholic” winds up just being an integrist game of its own, as that suggests that “Catholisicm” is coterminous with that set of opinions and enthusiasms.)

One problem with the term “Neo-Catholic”, is that people I know who would fit in that category as understood here, use the term to refer to right-wing dissenters who see the Church as a vehicle for free market/militaristic/nationalist political aims, which makes the term ambiguous, and hence less-than-useful.  Also, the self-understanding of “Neo-Catholics” is not one of being innovative, but of bringing Tradition to bear in the modern world.  The ”Hermeneutic of Continuity” as Pope Benedict states it.  Most even consider themselves as Traditionalists, who prefer the OF in Latin with very traditional rubrics.  I don’t know what a better term would be, but “Neo-Catholics” is disrespectful and unhelpful.

Western Exceptionalism

Learning classical languages is essential to European civilization….Europe’s luck was its initial poverty. For a very long time, Europe remained far removed from the existing cultural centers in Asia. Europeans were barbarians, inhabiting distant, freezing northern shores. And they knew this about themselves. Studying classical languages, and thereby imbibing a civilization wholly different from their own, made them conscious of the fact that they were stinking barbarians, who needed to wash themselves with the soap of higher civilizations. The Romans were well aware that they were culturally inferior to the Greeks. But they also had the courage to admit it. And that is precisely what gave them the strength to absorb the Hellenic civilization, and spread it to the lands they conquered. The essential characteristic of European culture is that it is ex-centric. Not in the sense of an Englishman who takes a bath wearing his bowler hat, but in the sense that the two sources of her civilization, Athens and Jerusalem, lie outside the geographical area of Europe itself. European culture is based on the recognition that we are barbarians who civilized ourselves by internalizing ‘strange’ cultural sources.

- Remi Brag

Ecumenism Now

The Second Vatican Council

From The Second Vatican Council decree “Unitatis Redintegratio”, since this topic seems to be popular lately:

CHAPTER II

THE PRACTICE OF ECUMENISM

5. The attainment of union is the concern of the whole Church, faithful and shepherds alike. This concern extends to everyone, according to his talent, whether it be exercised in his daily Christian life or in his theological and historical research. This concern itself reveals already to some extent the bond of brotherhood between all Christians and it helps toward that full and perfect unity which God in His kindness wills.

6. Every renewal of the Church(27) is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubtedly this is the basis of the movement toward unity.

Christ summons the Church to continual reformation as she sojourns here on earth. The Church is always in need of this, in so far as she is an institution of men here on earth. Thus if, in various times and circumstances, there have been deficiencies in moral conduct or in church discipline, or even in the way that church teaching has been formulated-to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself-these can and should be set right at the opportune moment.

Church renewal has therefore notable ecumenical importance. Already in various spheres of the Church’s life, this renewal is taking place. The Biblical and liturgical movements, the preaching of the word of God and catechetics, the apostolate of the laity, new forms of religious life and the spirituality of married life, and the Church’s social teaching and activity-all these should be considered as pledges and signs of the future progress of ecumenism.

7. There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. For it is from renewal of the inner life of our minds,(28) from self-denial and an unstinted love that desires of unity take their rise and develop in a mature way. We should therefore pray to the Holy Spirit for the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble. gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them. St. Paul says: “I, therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace”.(29) This exhortation is directed especially to those raised to sacred Orders precisely that the work of Christ may be continued. He came among us “not to be served but to serve”.(30)

The words of St. John hold good about sins against unity: “If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us”.(31) So we humbly beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren, just as we forgive them that trespass against us.

All the faithful should remember that the more effort they make to live holier lives according to the Gospel, the better will they further Christian unity and put it into practice [an area in which I know I have room to improve]. For the closer their union with the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, the more deeply and easily will they be able to grow in mutual brotherly love.

8. This change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name, “spiritual ecumenism.” [it's not about being dismissive of differences, but in seeking real unity with the other]

It is a recognized custom for Catholics to have frequent recourse to that prayer for the unity of the Church which the Saviour Himself on the eve of His death so fervently appealed to His Father: “That they may all be one”.(32)

In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers “for unity,” and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”.(33) [respect for the other is important]

Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity [self-respect is also important, for the individual and for the community]. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circumstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority, unless otherwise provided for by the Bishops’ Conference according to its statutes, or by the Holy See.

9. We must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren. To achieve this purpose, study is of necessity required, and this must be pursued with a sense of realism and good will. Catholics, who already have a proper grounding, need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and general background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides-especially for discussion of theological problems-where each can treat with the other on an equal footing-provided that those who take part in them are truly competent and have the approval of the bishops. From such dialogue will emerge still more clearly what the situation of the Catholic Church really is. In this way too the outlook of our separated brethren will be better understood, and our own belief more aptly explained. [this has been useful to a significant degree, but I think a lot of ecumenical dialogue has stalled here, as not all sides have complete corporate reunion in mind as an achievable or desirable goal]

10. Sacred theology and other branches of knowledge, especially of an historical nature, must be taught with due regard for the ecumenical point of view, so that they may correspond more exactly with the facts.

It is most important that future shepherds and priests should have mastered a theology that has been carefully worked out in this way and not polemically, especially with regard to those aspects which concern the relations of separated brethren with the Catholic Church.

This importance is the greater because the instruction and spiritual formation of the faithful and of religious depends so largely on the formation which their priests have received.

Moreover, Catholics engaged in missionary work in the same territories as other Christians ought to know, particularly in these times, the problems and the benefits in their apostolate which derive from the ecumenical movement.

11. The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren [Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...]. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism [dialogue is good, as long as truth remains central], in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.  [muddying the truth helps nobody]

At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.

Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a “hierarchy” of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.(34)

12. Before the whole world let all Christians confess their faith in the triune God, one and three in the incarnate Son of God, our Redeemer and Lord. United in their efforts, and with mutual respect, let them bear witness to our common hope which does not play us false. In these days when cooperation in social matters is so widespread, all men without exception are called to work together, with much greater reason all those who believe in God, but most of all, all Christians in that they bear the name of Christ. Cooperation among Christians vividly expresses the relationship which in fact already unites them, and it sets in clearer relief the features of Christ the Servant. This cooperation, which has already begun in many countries, should be developed more and more, particularly in regions where a social and technical evolution is taking place be it in a just evaluation of the dignity of the human person, the establishment of the blessings of peace, the application of Gospel principles to social life, the advancement of the arts and sciences in a truly Christian spirit, or also in the use of various remedies to relieve the afflictions of our times such as famine and natural disasters, illiteracy and poverty, housing shortage and the unequal distribution of wealth. All believers in Christ can, through this cooperation, be led to acquire a better knowledge and appreciation of one another, and so pave the way to Christian unity.

Just though I’d share what I’m thinking about right now.

Some Random Thoughts on God’s Nature

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God."

This post is just basically a bit of an info dump, some scripture and some St. Thomas Aquinas quotes.  Just things on my mind.

“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent.” – Numbers 23:19
“For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” – Malachi 3:6

“Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.” – Hebrews 6:17,18

“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” – James 1:17

St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, giving his first arguement for God, showing that He is the unmoved mover, a being of Pure Act:

“The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ 1…02.htm#article3

More St. Thomas, regarding whether it is possible to know God:

“It is written: “We shall see Him as He is” (1 John 2:2).

I answer that, Since everything is knowable according as it is actual, God, Who is pure act without any admixture of potentiality, is in Himself supremely knowable. But what is supremely knowable in itself, may not be knowable to a particular intellect, on account of the excess of the intelligible object above the intellect; as, for example, the sun, which is supremely visible, cannot be seen by the bat by reason of its excess of light.

Therefore some who considered this, held that no created intellect can see the essence of God. This opinion, however, is not tenable. For as the ultimate beatitude of man consists in the use of his highest function, which is the operation of his intellect; if we suppose that the created intellect could never see God, it would either never attain to beatitude, or its beatitude would consist in something else beside God; which is opposed to faith. For the ultimate perfection of the rational creature is to be found in that which is the principle of its being; since a thing is perfect so far as it attains to its principle. Further the same opinion is also against reason. For there resides in every man a natural desire to know the cause of any effect which he sees; and thence arises wonder in men. But if the intellect of the rational creature could not reach so far as to the first cause of things, the natural desire would remain void.

Hence it must be absolutely granted that the blessed see the essence of God.”

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1012.htm

More St. Thomas, regarding change in God:

“I answer that, From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable.

First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable.

Secondly, because everything which is moved, remains as it was in part, and passes away in part; as what is moved from whiteness to blackness, remains the same as to substance; thus in everything which is moved, there is some kind of composition to be found. But it has been shown above (Question 3, Article 7) that in God there is no composition, for He is altogether simple. Hence it is manifest that God cannot be moved.

Thirdly, because everything which is moved acquires something by its movement, and attains to what it had not attained previously. But since God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude of perfection of all being, He cannot acquire anything new, nor extend Himself to anything whereto He was not extended previously. Hence movement in no way belongs to Him. So, some of the ancients, constrained, as it were, by the truth, decided that the first principle was immovable.”

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm

Perhaps more importantly, St. Thomas on the love of God:

“It is written: “God is love” (John 4:16).

I answer that, We must needs assert that in God there is love: because love is the first movement of the will and of every appetitive faculty. For since the acts of the will and of every appetitive faculty tend towards good and evil, as to their proper objects: and since good is essentially and especially the object of the will and the appetite, whereas evil is only the object secondarily and indirectly, as opposed to good; it follows that the acts of the will and appetite that regard good must naturally be prior to those that regard evil; thus, for instance, joy is prior to sorrow, love to hate: because what exists of itself is always prior to that which exists through another. Again, the more universal is naturally prior to what is less so. Hence the intellect is first directed to universal truth; and in the second place to particular and special truths. Now there are certain acts of the will and appetite that regard good under some special condition, as joyand delight regard good present and possessed; whereas desire and hope regard good not as yet possessed. Love, however, regards good universally, whether possessed or not. Hence love is naturally the first act of the will and appetite; for which reason all the other appetite movements presuppose love, as their root and origin. For nobody desires anything nor rejoices in anything, except as a good that is loved: nor is anything an object of hate except as opposed to the object of love. Similarly, it is clear that sorrow, and other things like to it, must be referred to love as to their first principle. Hence, in whomsoever there is will and appetite, there must also be love: since if the first is wanting, all that follows is also wanting. Now it has been shown that will is in God (19, 1), and hence we must attribute love to Him.”

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm#article1

And more on love, because it is awesome:

“It is said (Wisdom 11:25): “Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which Thou hast made.”

I answer that, God loves all existing things. For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a thing is itself a good; and likewise, whatever perfection it possesses. Now it has been shown above (Question 19, Article 4) that God’s will is the causeof all things. It must needs be, therefore, that a thing has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by God. To every existing thing, then, God wills some good. Hence, since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists. Yet not as we love. Because since our will is not the cause of the goodness of things, but is moved by it as by its object, our love, whereby we will good to anything, is not the cause of its goodness; but conversely its goodness, whether real or imaginary, calls forth our love, by which we will that it should preserve the good it has, and receive besides the good it has not, and to this end we direct our actions: whereas the love of God infuses and creates goodness.”

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm#article2

In conclusion: God is pure act, without any potentiality, yet he is not static and is a knowable, personal and loving God. This is the account of the Bible as well as the philosophers. Pascal was wrong: The Unmoved Mover is Love, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the great I AM THAT I AM.

The Man Who Would Be Küng

The Man Who Would Be Küng

Long time, no post.  I think I’m pretty much done doing what I started doing on this blog, but I think I might post more random thoughts of mine here in the future, so if you’re interested you can read them.  I was received fully into the Sacramental life of the Catholic Church on April 11 of this year, and have been regularly practicing ever since.  Deo gratias!

Anyways, my roomate read me this bit from Phillip Trower’s book “Turmoil & Truth: The Historical Roots of the Modern Crisis in the Catholic Church” (p. 25, footnotes 7 and 8 ) ( http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/trower/turmoil&truth.htm) and I felt like sharing, especially as it plays into conversations I’ve had with my Reformed friends vis a vis Church discipline.  It really sheds a lot of light on what the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has been up to the last half century, especially as concerns dissent.  Based on what I’ve heard and read elsewhere, the way the Church has dialoged with others these past 60 years has much in common with the approach Poland always took to religious dissenters and minorities.  This is, for the most part, a good thing in my book.

“7. There seems to be reason to think that at the time of the Council the highest authorities were persuaded that had Luther not been excommunicated, the reformation would never have happened.  A little more dialogue and Luther and his followers would have returned to the fold.  This would explain the handling of Fr. Hans Küng.  Ironically, Fr. Küng has shown every sign of wanting to be a new Luther.  He has done everything in his power to get himself excommunicated.  However the Holy See seems equally determined not to oblige him.  he must be a deeply disappointed man.

…

8.Explaining the new policy over a decade and a half ago, the then secretary of a Roman congregation (now the cardinal prefect of a different one), told the author that, rather than condemning errors, the Holy See today preferred to ‘swamp errors with truth’, or in the words of John Paul II to André Frossard, allow ‘error to destroy itself’ (Catholic World Report, Nov. 1995).  This is simply an extension of Pope John’s principle ‘it is better to use the means of mercy than of condemnation’.  Most Catholics thought Pope John was talking about its use at the Council.  They did not realize the principle would continue to be applied more or less indefinitely.  However, Cardinal Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict XVI for those keeping track] has thrown the clearest light on the origins of the new policy in his Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, 1987, p. 229: German original, 1982).  After speaking of the ‘great tension and turmoil’ in the Church, of the demand by many of the faithful for ‘a clear drawing of lines’, and the inability of “the Pope and bishops as yet to decide in favor of such an action’, he attributes it to ‘the resentment that has grown up in the last half century because of innumerable faulty decisions, and above all because of the too narrow handling of Church discipline (in the past)’, a resentment he describes as ‘like an inward-growing boil on the ecclesial conscience’ that ‘ has created an allergy to condemnation, from which we can more readily expect an increase of the ill than its cure’.  As to whether truth wil succeed in swamping error in the long run, the cardinal [now Pope] confines himself to the cautious statement ‘we shall have to see whether…this approach to discipline in matters of doctrine can serve as a model for the future.’”

I would like to note that since becoming Pope, Benedict has in fact continued along similar lines in terms of discipline.  ”Always proposing, never imposing”.  Hans Küng is still not excommunicated, and no other mass excommunications seem imminent.

Experiencing the Real Presence

Apologies dear reader, I appear to have gotten ahead of myself in my what I said at the end of the last post. The post about the Blessed Virgin will have to wait. Much more important in the cosmic scheme, and chronologically antecedent, is the story of the first time I attended Mass.

Now I had established for that I had no choice spiritually or intellectually but to enter the Church, and still I had no idea what that meant, really. I was still unsure about what exactly I was supposed to be doing, but I came to the conclusion that I should probably attend an actual Catholic Mass. So on Sunday evening the week after the Walk for Life, I nervously made my way to Newman Hall in Berkeley around 9 PM.

I sat on the couches in the reception area for about half an hour, reading my Bible and wrestling with my innate discomfort with attending a Catholic Mass. I had already felt the moving of the Spirit in the Church (indeed, within the very Parish I sat in), I had intellectually explored the Churches claims and found them impregnable, I had seen private Catholic devotions up close and felt a tug in my heart.

Yet for all this, still the Mass frightened me, set me on edge. I had been raised to believe that the Mass itself was a blasphemy against God, a re-Crucifixion of Christ that spit upon the Gospel. I no longer believed that to be the case, but there was a deep place in my gut where I still felt primordial disgust at the thought of attending a Catholic Mass.

I knew the Mass started at ten, so I made God an offer. If someone I knew came up to me and asked me to enter the sanctuary, I would take that as a sign and enter in peace. I felt relieved after making this promise, as the part of me that wanted to avoid going in to Mass thought there was little to no chance of that happening, even though I did know some parishioners at Newman.

I paced up and down the hall slowly, examining the pictures and icons up for display, appreciating their finer details. The clock ticked on towards 10, and I had seen no-one that I knew. I was conflicted, on one hand I wanted to attend Mass and knew that I should, but I was strangely glad at the idea of being able to avoid it. Then, something exceptional happened. The sign I had asked for came to pass, and from a completely unexpected source.

Someone I vaguely recognized walked up and expressed surprise to see me there, and I explained that I was visiting for the first time. I couldn’t place her at first, so we quickly reintroduced ourselves. Her name was Andrea, and she was the friend of a good friend I had hung out with a couple times in the past. She invited me to come on in to the service that was about to start up, and so in we went.

I was flabbergasted that my ploy to avoid going to Mass through asking for a sign actually resulted in being given the requested sign, but I’ve learned to not be surprised when that sort of thing happens.

The Mass itself was life-changing. The sanctuary was lit only by candles, lending an air of mystery. The music was lead by a man with a guitar to the far left side of the sanctuary. It was bewildering following along with the congregation who knew the liturgy by heart, including when to sit, stand, or kneel.

One of the charges leveled at the Catholic Church by Evangelical Protestants is that one “never hears the Gospel” being preached, especially from ex-Catholics with axes to grind. I had not seen this to be the case in the case of Catholics I knew, or in Catholic writings I had read. At the Mass, however, I was overwhelmed by the sheer presence of the Gospel in the liturgy, from the scripture readings, the homily, the Creed, the prayers, and most especially the consecration of the Host and communion. The whole Mass, from beginning to end, was a testimony to the Gospel. I could not, and still cannot, understand how anybody could look at the liturgy and see anything other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed and glorified.

Now, I mentioned in an earlier entry how I had mocked my friend Amanda for the Catholic belief in Transubstantiation. By the point I had actually decided to attend Mass, I no longer thought of it as a silly doctrine, and assented to it intellectually, but I didn’t believe it fully. I cannot explain what I sensed when kneeling during the prayer of consecration, but I knew that the elements had been changed, that the power of God had indeed descended upon the bread and wine. I came in with an intellectual agreement with the concept, but I left with sure faith in the reality of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, an experience that is validated whenever I attend Mass.

I went up and received the blessing from the priest, and felt profound peace and grace from the experience. The priest blessed us and sent us forth. I’ve attended Mass many times since then, and while it is always a deeply enriching experience, I will not ever forget going for the first time, and the providence I encountered.

Next time, we shall discuss the Blessed Virgin.

Veni Sancte Spiritus, Veni Per Mariam

Encountering the Culture of Life

Okay, so I haven’t updated in a while. I blame the Latin course I took in July, combined with procrastination. So, I’ll try to continue the story where I left off. This piece will probably be a bit rambley, being more a report on my reaction to encountering Catholicism in reality rather than in theory.

In January of 2008, I found myself in a very weird place. I had come to an intellectual decision about the Catholic Church, but I didn’t know what to do. I had talked with a few of my friends about the Church, but had no real idea what becoming a Catholic would actually mean. I now knew the arguments about the Catholic faith from both sides, and saw the Catholic side as true, indeed as the Truth. My world was upside down, left was right, cats lived with dogs. I was, in short, confused.

After my encounter with her family on Mardis Gras, I hung out with Mary and her brother John Paul around Berkeley a few times. We had some good random conversations running into each other once in a while. Mary and her friend Dan decided to check out the Berkeley poetry scene, where I’ve had some minor involvement over the past couple years, so I saw them around a couple of times. Every once in a while, she would send out invites to events for social causes, which I usually supported in concept but couldn’t be bothered to actually attend. Always something more important to do, or I didn’t particularly care enough about the cause to be bothered to leave home.

So it happened that in mid-January, as I found myself wondering what exactly it meant to become Catholic, I noticed that I had been invited to the 4th annual Walk for Life in San Francisco. I had ignored it when I was initially invited, thinking it was far too much trouble to go to San Francisco. Now, pro-life issues were something I’ve always had strong feelings about, even in High School, but for whatever reason I had glossed over it as being somehow unimportant. Not something that would inspire me to go out and walk 2.5 miles, even if I supported it in theory.

It was about 4 days before the Walk that it suddenly struck me that this would be a good thing to do, primarily because the cause was good and just, and needed as much support as possible. But another aspect that occurred to was that Mary and her friends and family who I knew were going, were the same people I had previously had to grudgingly acknowledge as good Christians despite being Catholics. Now that my opinions about the Church were utterly transformed by my experiences, I needed to talk to good Catholics, to interact in reality rather than abstract theory. So I contacted Mary and asked her what was the plan for the walk, and she told me when and where to go.

I met up with Mary, John Paul and a few other acquaintances at the Berkeley BART station around 10, and Dan joined up with us at MacArthur. We chatted a bit on the trip through the tunnel, about the Walk, it’s young history, and John Paul’s native shyness among other topics.

Justin Herman Plaza was crowded, as can be seen from the picture above. 25,000 people had turned out to join in the walk. Coming in all shapes, sizes, colors, and tongues united in one purpose, it was one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen. The main thing that popped out to me was the huge number of images of the Blessed Virgin Mary that were visible. For the first time in my life, I did not shrink away in horror and scandal at the sight of her. I saw it for what it was, a sign of love for the Mother of God, and hence for her son, Jesus Christ. I saw it as beautiful.

The speakers were decent, the highlight being Gianna Jessen, a young woman who had actually been aborted and lived. She has cerebral palsy as a result of the attempted abortion. Amazingly, she remains a very bubbly and outgoing person despite her problems, giving full credit to her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Her speech moved me, and I provide the YouTube link below.

After the speeches had been spoken, the actual walk began. 2.5 miles along the San Francisco waterfront, moving at a rather slow pace due to the huge number of people on the walk. Around 250 counter-protesters lined the way jeering and shouting invective at us as we passed by. People mostly responded by breaking out into devotional song or praying. The weather was absolutely gorgeous, surprising in January.

I walked along with Dan, Mary, and several of her younger siblings, mainly discussing the issues of abortion and contraception, but bouncing a bit all over the place. At some point, somehow, Dan and myself got drafted into carrying an unwieldy banner someone had made, which made us move considerably slower.

As I mentioned earlier on, there were many people carrying images of Our Lady. I noticed this more and more during the walk, and increasingly I felt the inherent rightness of it. This was not idolatry, this was the right and proper veneration for the woman who had carried the infinite God in her womb. One man was leading a prayer of the Rosary on a bullhorn, with the crowd around following. Even in my search through apologetic works, I had never seriously meditated on the words of the Rosary. “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.” Hearing it repeated over and over led me to consider the words carefully, and slowly to begin joining the crowd in the response. It was my first experience actually participating in Catholic ritual, and it was profoundly moving to me. I felt like I was coming home.

My breakfast that day had consisted of a single apple. I was exhausted and loopy with hunger by the end of the walk, having carried the banner for a good half the while. Mary was kind enough to share a bottle of water with me, so I didn’t get too dehydrated. At the end of the walk, people dispersed to various prepared picnics and barbecues that had been set up withing view of the Golden Gate. I joined with Mary’s family and a few others and enjoyed a nice sandwich with them. At this point, I was able to unwind and shake off some of the exhaustion of the day. Afterwards, Dan, Mary, myself, and Matthew, a friend of theirs in seminary, walked over toe Barney’s Gourmet Burgers to more fully satiate our appetites.

Now, at this point, I had said nothing about my intention to enter the Catholic Church, nor had I actually told it to anyone Catholic yet. As far as Mary knew, I remained a convinced and staunch Protestant, with a deeply dismissive attitude towards Catholicism. She knew of my confused reaction to the Mardis Gras party, and how the Catholic practices freaked me out. Additionally, when I was having having dinner with a group of friends including her and one of the others was talking about his walk towards apostasy from the Catholic Church, I made some rather unsavory comments about how understandable it is for someone raised in the Catholic Church to reject its silly and pernicious doctrines. She overheard this comment, and seemed quite hurt by it. When we got to the restaurant, I realized that she had seemed wary all day about talking about anything Catholic, as she got very nervous mentioning a prayer request pertaining to the Church.

“You know, it’s funny that you should mention that, because I’m actually planning to enter the Catholic Church,” I dropped casually into the conversation. Dan and Matthew responded with a slightly surprised congratulations, but Mary seemed absolutely shocked. Immediately, she was grinning from ear to ear, seemingly flabbergasted at my unexpected change of heart. I don’t think she knew quite what to make of it, a reaction I have encountered quite a bit since, and one of the primary reasons I started this blog to begin with.

We went on to eat, and continued talking about many subjects, from science fiction novels to John Henry Newman. We parted ways with Seminarian Matthew, and the three of us used the fine mass transit system of the city by the bay to get back to Berkeley, conversing the entire way. We parted ways in good cheer, and I went home with the burning certainty in my heart: I was coming home.

Next time, I promise not to take so long to post. As to the topic, we will discuss the Blessed Virgin Mary, Most Holy Mother of God, and my warming relationship with her and the communion of Saints.

This is amazing

Wordle is an amazing website. I highly recommend it. Here’s the Nicene Creed that someone made:

Here’s the contents of this blog so far:

And the St. Crispian’s Day speech:

I’ll be working on a new blog entry. Expect it soon!